glpi_list_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add that pagination and filters are supported, and 'lista' implies a read-only listing. However, it does not disclose defaults, return format, or any access-related caveats, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then mentions capabilities, making it easy for an agent 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?

For a simple list/search tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It identifies the entity, the operation, and the main capabilities; detailed parameter behavior is handled by the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (limit, start, filter) are already described in the schema. The description only adds generic mention of pagination and filters, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Busca e lista') and the resource ('grupos (Groups)'), and notes that pagination and filters are supported. No sibling tool covers groups, so this is unambiguous even without an explicit differentiation statement.

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 clearly establishes that this tool is for searching/listing GLPI groups, which is contextually distinct from all sibling tools. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the resource scope is clear enough that no confusion should arise.

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