devices_get_management_groups_by_fqdn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of basic behavioral disclosure. It makes the read-only nature clear through 'Get' and identifies the input as a device FQDN, but it does not disclose what happens when the device is not found, what fields the returned groups contain, or whether any permissions are required.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then clarifies the identifier. Every word adds value.

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 low complexity of a single-parameter lookup, the description is nearly complete: it states the input and the conceptual output. It does not describe response structure or error behavior, and there is no output schema to cover that, so it stops just short of fully complete.

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 schema provides only a bare string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the fqdn parameter refers to the device being queried, adding meaning beyond the schema. It still lacks format details or examples, but the key semantic is clear.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('Management Groups'), and the identifying key ('FQDN'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as devices_get_by_fqdn, which returns device details, and management_groups_get_all_devices, which returns devices for a group.

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 the management groups belonging to a device identified by FQDN. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, prerequisites, or cases where another tool such as devices_get_by_fqdn would be more appropriate.

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