list_group_permissions

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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention critical details like pagination (only a limit parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, auth) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it meets a minimum viable standard.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'repo_slug' identifies the repository and 'limit' controls the maximum results with a default of 50, clarifying their roles. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., slug syntax) or that 'limit' is optional due to the default, though the schema indicates this.

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 ('group permissions for a repository'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_user_permissions' or 'get_group_permission', which would require mentioning it's specifically for groups (not users) and listing (not getting a single permission).

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_user_permissions' for user permissions or 'get_group_permission' for a specific group's permission, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., requires repository access).

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