Service Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds that the tool returns service group names and descriptions and positions it as an exact-name lookup, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the operation and output fields, and the second provides actionable guidance. This is concise and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the main use case and the practical purpose without missing information needed to call the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single optional limit parameter with default, minimum, maximum, and null behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed because the schema already carries the burden.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List service groups with their name and description.' It also gives a concrete use case, finding a group's exact name before filtering, which helps an agent understand the tool's role. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools such as list_hostgroups, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to find a group's exact name before filtering by it.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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