list_process_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the source metric and label queried, which adds some context about data sourcing. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are omitted. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the second specifies the metric details. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (listing with parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the data source but omits parameter semantics and behavioral context. However, since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. This partial coverage results in a mediocre score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no information about the two parameters ('environment' and 'env_hint'), their meanings, or how they affect the query. The description only discusses the metric source, leaving parameters entirely undocumented, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return process group names from process monitoring metrics.' It specifies the verb ('return') and resource ('process group names'), and mentions the source metric. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'list_checks' or 'list_servers', which also list resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this is preferred over other listing tools. The only implicit context is 'process monitoring metrics,' but this lacks explicit usage rules or exclusions.

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