sophos_list_firewall_groups

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only list operation but fails to disclose pagination behavior (default page_size=50), search/filter capabilities (search, search_fields, recurse_subgroups), or the requirement of tenant_id. The agent has no warning about potential large result sets or rate 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?

At one sentence, it is maximally concise but arguably under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. The single sentence earns its place by stating purpose, but the brevity sacrifices useful guidance. It is front-loaded but insufficiently informative.

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 a 7-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It omits mention of pagination defaults, required tenant_id, search/group nesting options, and return value structure. The agent would need to infer or discover these from the schema alone.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no value beyond the schema; it does not explain why or when to use parameters like 'page_total' or 'recurse_subgroups'. However, since schema alone documents parameters well, a 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all firewall groups in a tenant' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('firewall groups'), with clear scope ('in a tenant'). It accurately conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sophos_list_firewalls' (lists firewalls, not groups) and 'sophos_create_firewall_group' (creation, not listing).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'sophos_get_firewall_group' for a single group) or when not to use it. No context about prerequisites, caching, or appropriate scenarios is given.

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