List My Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint; the sentence 'Read-only' merely restates that and earns no credit. The one piece of added value is disclosing the payload shape (group IDs plus course), which matters because there is no output schema. Nothing is said about pagination behavior despite the limit parameter, so this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability and scope front-loaded, followed by the read-only note and the downstream-usage hint. No padding, no restatement of the tool name.

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 output schema, the description correctly carries the return shape (group IDs and course), which is exactly what an agent needs to chain into other group tools. Minor gap: no mention of result limits or whether omitted results need paging, given the limit parameter exists.

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?

There is a single, optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Maximum number of items to return. Smaller is faster.'). The description adds nothing about paging or default ordering, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 plus a real scope constraint: 'student groups you belong to across all courses', which separates it from get_group (single group) and list_group_members (members of one group). It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed to it.

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?

'Use the IDs with the other group tools' gives a concrete consumption workflow, implying this is a discovery call that precedes list_group_discussions, list_group_files, get_group, etc. It offers no explicit 'don't use this when...' exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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