List tool groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds the domain model instead — tiered (off/simple/full) vs on/off sections, the permanent 'always' section, and the fact that mode changes emit tools/list_changed so the client refreshes mid-conversation. That is meaningful context an agent cannot get from annotations or the empty schema. It stops short of describing the exact shape of the returned section entries (no output schema exists), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the mode taxonomy, then the side effect, then the call-ordering advice. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only semantics, the description covers everything needed: what is listed, what each entry contains, what the modes mean, which section cannot be changed, and the refresh side effect. An agent can call it correctly on the first try.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly adds no parameter detail rather than inventing any.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every tool section') plus exactly what is returned per section ('its current mode and the modes it accepts'). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling mutators enable_tool_group and disable_tool_group, which are named directly.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering rule: 'Use this first to discover what is available before reaching for enable_tool_group.' It also implicitly excludes the write path (enable/disable) by pointing at them as follow-ups, so an agent knows which sibling to call next.

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