list_groups

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying 'List' and 'Returns'. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that only user-defined groups are included and what data is returned, going beyond the annotation.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences. The main action and return value are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is stated efficiently without redundancy.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and usage context. It is sufficiently complete, though it does not detail default field behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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% for the single 'fields' parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description does not need to add parameter details, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('user-defined groups') and states the return contents (names, descriptions, IDs). It also distinguishes itself from create_group by framing its use as a pre-check before creating 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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool to check for existing groups before creating new ones, giving clear usage context. It does not mention exclusion cases like using get_group for a single group, but no direct sibling alternative is suggested elsewhere.

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