list_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that this is a read operation and details the return structure, including a 'truncated' flag that is 'measured rather than guessed,' which provides valuable insight into pagination behavior. It does not discuss error conditions or authorization, but for a simple list operation, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 compact and well-structured with sections for purpose, arguments, and return value. Each sentence is informative and there is no redundancy or 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?

Despite having no annotations or output schema, the description provides all essential invocation details: purpose, parameter meanings/defaults, and return structure. The note about 'truncated' being measured rather than guessed adds useful specificity. For a tool of this simplicity, the description is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explicitly explaining both parameters: max_results as a page bound with default 200, and target as an IdP target name that can be omitted. This adds clear semantic meaning beyond the bare property names and types in the schema.

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 explicitly labels the operation as '[READ]' and specifies the resource 'Groups in the realm,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users, list_clients, and list_identity_providers. The verb and resource are clear and specific.

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 usage for listing groups based on the resource name, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like group_members or list_users. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is minimal and only implied.

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