list_resource_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' signals a read-only operation, and 'for an account' sets scope, but it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, permission requirements, or what the returned data includes. This is adequate but minimal.

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, dense sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the operation and resource immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, one-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient to allow correct invocation. The only minor gap is the absence of any mention of response shape or pagination, but the low complexity keeps this from being a serious deficiency.

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%, so the description does not need to carry parameter documentation. The description adds only 'for an account,' which weakly reinforces the account_id parameter without adding meaningful new semantics beyond the schema's 'The account ID'.

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 clearly states the operation ('List'), the resource ('IAM resource groups'), and the scope ('for an account'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_resource_group through the 'List' verb versus 'get', and from list_permission_groups by naming 'IAM resource groups' specifically.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_resource_group or list_permission_groups. The phrase 'for an account' implies account scope, but there are no stated selection criteria, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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