list_groups

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. It states the return format ('Formatted table') and what columns to expect, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns all groups at once or uses pagination, or if there are any access restrictions. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second describes the return format. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by combining the two sentences more fluidly or adding a brief introductory phrase.

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 the tool has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for a simple read operation. However, with no annotations and a read operation that likely has behavioral considerations (authentication, data scope, etc.), the description should ideally mention at least basic context about access or limitations. The output schema will handle return structure details, but behavioral transparency remains a gap.

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 has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('server groups'), including what information is returned (descriptions and member counts). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_servers' by focusing on groups rather than individual servers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential group-related operations that might exist in the future.

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. While it implicitly suggests this is for viewing group information rather than executing operations (like 'execute_on_group'), there are no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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