Service Template Groups

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

Annotations already comprehensively cover the behavioral profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful domain context about what these groups are used for and contradicts none of the annotations. For a simple list operation with this annotation coverage, there are no meaningful behavioral gaps left to disclose.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence. The verb and resource come first, followed by a compact parenthetical that defines the entity and its purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of information already present in the schema or annotations.

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 tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, an output schema, and a complete four-hint annotation set, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing. The description supplies the domain context (what a service template group is and why it matters), while the schema and annotations carry the structural burden.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single `limit` parameter is fully documented with its default (50), maximum (500), type constraints, and allowed values. The description adds no parameter-specific information, and with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('List service template groups') and expands on what the resource is: 'named groups of service templates, used e.g. to bulk-apply services to hosts'. This entity-level clarification helps an agent distinguish it from the sibling list_servicetemplates. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling by name, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'used e.g. to bulk-apply services to hosts' provides a concrete application context that implies when this tool's data is relevant. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance — no mention of list_servicetemplates for individual templates or list_servicegroups for runtime service groups. The usage context must be inferred by the agent.

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