e2e_list_security_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word "List" implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions required, pagination, result size, or whether unrelated security groups are ever returned.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. It is hard to fault, though it is also close to the minimum needed.

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 listing tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the essentials are present, but with no annotations and no return-shape description an agent still cannot tell what a result entry looks like or whether results are paged.

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 all four parameters (vm_id, type, location, project_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only reiterates the vm_id scoping and the attached/available distinction, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 (list) and resource (security groups) and scopes it to a compute node, which distinguishes it from siblings like e2e_attach_security_group and e2e_detach_security_group. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

"attached to or available for a specific compute node" implies when the tool is used and mirrors the schema's attached/available enum, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling alternative named.

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