list_user_groups

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results include group name, type, members, and remote group matches — useful return context — but says nothing about read-only safety, required device permissions, device reachability, or result size/pagination limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose line is front-loaded and the parameter/return blocks are scannable. The parameter block largely duplicates the schema, which is mild redundancy, but there is no filler prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the return contract; it does so briefly (name, type, members, remote matches), which is helpful. However, for a device-scoped read tool it omits pagination behavior and whether vdom omission defaults to the root domain, leaving gaps an agent would hit in practice.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both device_id and the optional vdom already carry descriptions in the schema. The description restates them ('Identifier of the FortiGate device', 'Virtual Domain name (optional)') with essentially no extra meaning — no format hints, no default-scope consequences for omitting vdom. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List user groups') and adds scope detail — group members including local users and remote-server matches — which helps distinguish it from the plain user-listing siblings like list_local_users. It never explicitly names an alternative tool, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not point to list_local_users, list_admins, or list_fsso_agents for related queries. The usage is only implied by the tool name and its position among read-only list tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.