list_vm_service_groups

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: runtime CRD version discovery, the returned envelope structure including items, boot_order, member_count, returned/total/truncated, served_version, and a teaching error for older Supervisors. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers technical and return-value details efficiently. It is dense but each sentence contributes context, though the length is on the higher side for a list tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly with envelope fields, truncation semantics, and version discovery. It also covers the error behavior for older Supervisors, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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%, and the schema already documents both the target and namespace parameters. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraints for those parameters, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('VirtualMachineGroup objects and their bootOrder') with scope ('in a Namespace'). The resource and CRD identification make it clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools such as list_namespaces or list_vm_service_snapshots without needing to open schemas.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose statement; it does not say when to prefer this over list_namespaces or other list tools.

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