List groups

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return schema (id, name, athlete_count, is_default) and the fact that groups are exposed as tags, which is useful for data representation. This exceeds the baseline but doesn't cover pagination or limits, though these are likely unnecessary for this simple list.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the essential return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, the tag nuance, and the coach scope. Nothing essential is missing.

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, so the input schema is empty and coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly adds no extraneous parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'coach's athlete groups' and clarifies that TP exposes these as tags, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_list_athletes and group mutation tools. It also names the return fields, fully specifying the tool's scope.

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 context is clear: it's for retrieving athlete group metadata. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the simple zero-parameter nature makes the usage obvious. A more explicit pointer to sibling tools like tp_list_athletes_in_group would earn a 5.

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