rport_list_client_groups

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

The word 'Lista' implies a read-only listing behavior with no mutation, but with no annotations and no output schema the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, ordering, or authentication requirements. It is minimally transparent for a simple list operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource.

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 read-only listing tool, the description is essentially complete for invocation: an agent knows what the tool does and needs no arguments. It loses one point because it does not mention what the returned list contains (e.g., IDs, names) and no output schema is present to fill that 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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Lista' (list) with a clear resource, 'grupos de clientes definidos en RPort' (client groups defined in RPort). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling rport_list_clients, which targets individual clients, and from read/status tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as rport_list_clients or rport_get_client. The context around client groups vs. clients is implied by the name, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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