List Field Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds what data is returned (field groups, order, restrictive status) but omits operational details such as pagination, filtering, or authentication needs.

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?

It is a single concise sentence that front-loads the read operation and packs the key returned attributes without any wasted 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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description states the core purpose. However, it leaves the required dataset_path unexplained and offers no usage context against sibling listing tools, so it is only minimally complete.

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 single required parameter dataset_path has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains acceptable formats. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 gives a specific read verb and names the exact resources returned: contingent value field groups, field order, and restrictive status. It also distinguishes itself from mutation siblings by stating it does not modify the schema.

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?

It provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling list tools. The only contextual cue is that it is read-only, which is already covered by annotations rather than offering routing guidance.

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