list_groups

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. Description adds context: lists 'all' groups in 'default domain', specifies return fields, and mentions optional target parameter. No contradiction.

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?

Extremely concise: one line with READ label, return fields, and args. Front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

Sufficient for a simple list operation with one optional parameter. Output schema exists (not shown) but description already details return fields. Could mention default target behavior or pagination, but not critical.

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?

Input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). Description compensates by explaining the 'target' parameter as 'Optional NSX Manager target name from config', adding meaning beyond the type definition.

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?

Clearly states it lists all NSX security groups in the default domain, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_group (single group) and create_group (creation). Includes the verb 'List' and specific resource 'NSX security groups'.

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?

Implies usage for reading all groups, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_group or other list tools. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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