bitwarden_list_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implicitly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, but no additional context is given about pagination, rate limits, or response format. For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is adequate but not rich; it does not contradict any annotations.

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, well-formed sentence that immediately states the action and object. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema exists (which likely defines the return structure), the description is sufficient for a simple list operation. It identifies the organization scope and the resource. No further context is needed for an agent to invoke this correctly, though it could optionally mention that it returns the full organizational group list.

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 no parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter information, but there is nothing to explain. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from the schema's completeness.

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 'vault groups' and scopes it to 'the Bitwarden organization.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle members (e.g., bitwarden_list_members) and from group mutations (e.g., bitwarden_create_group). The intent is unambiguous.

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 implies use when you need to retrieve all vault groups, but it offers no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the sibling tools for member-group associations (e.g., bitwarden_list_member_groups), the description could have mentioned that this tool is for the full group list, not filtered by member. However, the context is clear enough for a simple list operation.

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