list_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what 'active groups' means. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter details are organized in a clear 'Args' section, though the example for 'omit' could be slightly more concise. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, return format, and sibling tool differentiation. For a list tool with three parameters, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 for all three parameters beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'page' for pagination, 'per_page' with a max value, and 'omit' with an example, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('the authenticated user's active groups'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_former_groups' or 'get_group', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'list_former_groups' for inactive groups or 'get_group' for a single group. It mentions the authenticated user's context but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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