prtg_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The explicit [READ] marker and 'List' verb signal a non-mutating operation, but the description does not discuss rollup calculation behavior, pagination, permissions, or the exact response shape.

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 a single focused sentence plus a one-line parameter note. The [READ] marker is front-loaded, and every word adds value without unnecessary filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the status data, and the parameter behavior. It leaves 'rollup status' undefined and does not describe the return format, which prevents a perfect 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?

The input schema only defines target as an optional string/null with a default of null, providing no semantic meaning. The description adds that target is a PRTG target name from config and that omitting it uses the default, which compensates for the 0% schema description 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 begins with [READ] and clearly states 'List PRTG device groups with their rollup status,' naming the specific operation, the resource, and a distinguishing output attribute. This makes it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like prtg_devices and prtg_sensors.

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 implies the tool is used when a list of PRTG device groups with rollup status is needed, and it offers a minor usage hint about omitting the target for the default. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use conditions, or how to choose between this and similar PRTG list tools.

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