action1_list_endpoint_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only list operation, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. The added context about targeting is helpful, but the description remains minimal in disclosing behavior beyond the basic 'list' action.

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 description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and the second sentence provides valuable context about the resource's role in the system.

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?

Given the simple list operation with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. The targeting context helps the agent understand when this tool is relevant, and the output schema handles return value expectations.

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 the parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (limit, org_id), so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('List endpoint groups') with a specific verb and resource. It also adds context by explaining that endpoint groups are what policies and automations target, which distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_endpoints or list_endpoint_group_members.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to see endpoint groups as targeting entities for policies/automations), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. It gives useful context but lacks direct exclusion or comparison to sibling tools.

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