get-group-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get the list of groups' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent about how this tool behaves beyond basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from additional context to improve other dimensions without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and pagination behavior. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list structure, fields), how errors are handled, or usage nuances, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate.

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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (groupName, size, page) with details on usage, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not enhancing understanding.

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 'Get the list of groups' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-application-list' or 'get-browser-list' beyond the resource type, nor does it specify if this retrieves all groups or filtered results.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'create-group' or 'update-group' for related operations, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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