list_setting_groups

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the completeness claim 'List all' and enumerates the specific groups included (general, products, tax, etc.), which gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's output. However, it doesn't mention return format, pagination, or other behavioral details, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second provides essential follow-up information about using the output with get_settings. No 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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what the tool returns, the specific groups, and the next step. It doesn't explicitly describe the response structure, but the field parameter's default (id,label,description) in the schema partially addresses that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'fields' parameter, including its default value. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline of 3 is warranted because the schema fully explains the parameter.

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 tool's function: 'List all WooCommerce setting groups.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'Use group ID with get_settings' distinguishes this from sibling tool get_settings, which retrieves options for a specific 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 provides explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent that this tool lists groups and that get_settings should be used to see options for a group. This creates a clear workflow and implicitly indicates when to use this tool vs. the alternative.

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