list_groups

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints. The description adds critical behavioral context about pagination semantics ('never read a full page as complete') and clarifies envelope fields like 'truncated'/'hint', which are not obvious from annotations alone.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers pagination caveats, a pointer to the related sibling, and parameter details in a crisp bullet-style Args block. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return envelope and pagination semantics, making the tool self-contained. It covers default behavior, edge cases (truncated pages), and next steps, making it complete for a list-with-pagination tool.

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?

Although the schema provides zero parameter descriptions, the Args block explains each parameter (target, name_filter, limit, offset) with practical meaning (e.g., 'Substring/glob match', 'Matched groups to skip'). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 starts with a clear verb-object statement: 'List NSX security groups in the default domain.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_group by noting it returns a list envelope and referencing get_group for single-group details. The [READ] prefix reinforces the read-only nature.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: warns against treating a page as complete, advises narrowing with name_filter or paginating with offset, and directs users to get_group for detailed criteria. This effectively tells when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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