List Manifold groups

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that groups have member and market counts and provides an example, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or rate limits. The added value is minimal but not contradictory.

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 sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence is useful and there is no fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description covers return fields (member and market counts). It does not explicitly explain pagination via beforeTime, but the schema parameter description does. Overall, the tool is well-documented for a list operation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds a concrete example ({ limit: 50 }) and explains that groups are categories, but does not enhance parameter meaning significantly beyond 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 clearly states the tool lists Manifold groups (topics/categories) and includes member and market counts. The verb 'List' and resource 'groups' are specific, and the explanation distinguishes it from sibling tools like manifold_list_markets.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to list groups with counts) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the purpose is distinct enough among siblings.

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