get_service_groups

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

The description reinforces the read-only annotation with a [READ-ONLY] prefix and adds a concrete config path ('/config/.../vsys/entry/service-group'). This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe return format or pagination.

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?

One compact sentence communicates the operation, scope, and config path with no wasted words. The read-only marker is front-loaded for immediate safety recognition.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description and annotations are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The lack of return-format detail is a minor gap but not critical for this operation.

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 single optional 'firewall' parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('service groups'), and clarifies the scope ('all service groups that contain multiple service objects'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_service_objects, add_service_group, and delete_service_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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_service_objects or the add/delete service group tools. The description implies a read operation but does not state exclusions or selection criteria.

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