list_collector_groups

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the pagination envelope with fields like truncated, the need to check truncated before assuming completeness, and the impact of a DOWN collector on data freshness. It also notes that member details are enriched via an extra collectors call, giving transparency about additional underlying operations.

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 well-structured and concise. It leads with a one-line summary, provides context in short paragraphs, and concludes with a clear Args section. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no filler. The use of a [READ] prefix is redundant but harmless.

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?

The description is highly complete for a list-type tool. It covers purpose, when to use, return envelope, parameter semantics, and behavioral implications. Given there is no output schema, it adequately explains output structure and pagination. It also connects to other tools in the ecosystem, making it self-sufficient.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'target', and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining: 'target: Aria target name from config; default when omitted.' This adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying what the target is and its default behavior, though it could elaborate on valid formats or how the default is resolved.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Aria Operations collector groups and their member collector status.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_resources or get_aria_health, which focus on different aspects of the Aria environment.

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 explicit 'when to use' guidance: 'Check this when resources appear missing from Aria Operations or metrics are stale.' It also references related tools (list_resources, metric tools) to explain implications of a DOWN collector. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or offer 'when not to use' guidance, so it's clear context but lacks formal exclusions.

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