sw_list_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it lists all groups the current user belongs to, and it specifies the returned fields. It does not contradict the annotations and provides enough clarity for a read-only list operation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second states the return shape, and the third gives a concrete use case. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

The description provides the essential context for calling this tool correctly: scope (current user), output fields (id, name, members), and a practical use case. The optional parameter is fully specified in the schema, and the read-only annotation covers safety. Nothing critical is missing for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'view' parameter is already thoroughly documented in the schema, including its enum values and real-world size caveats. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully carries that burden, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Splitwise groups') and scopes it to the current user. It also names the primary return fields (id, name, members), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sw_get_group or sw_create_group.

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 states a concrete use case: 'Use this to resolve a group name to its id.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from group-specific tools by covering all groups for the current user, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions.

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