list_service_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List service group objects' without mentioning pagination, filtering behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. The schema parameter descriptions partially compensate, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at a single sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and resource. While it could include more detail, it efficiently conveys the minimum necessary information without waste.

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 has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return format, how pagination works, or the semantics of container parameters (device, folder, snippet) beyond what the schema provides. The agent lacks necessary context to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, meaning each parameter (name, limit, device, folder, offset, snippet) already has a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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?

The description 'List service group objects' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (service group objects), making the tool's purpose identifiable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_group' or 'list_services', missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_service_group' or 'list_services'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints to help the agent decide, leaving it to infer from the input schema alone.

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