simpleinout_list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the API method (GET) and parameters, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention pagination behavior or any side effects. This adds some context but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with a clear structure: action, API endpoint, and args. Every line serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary redundancy.

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 paginated list tool with an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: action, API endpoint, and parameter semantics. It lacks notes on pagination specifics or error handling, but is reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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 provides brief descriptions for both parameters ('Page number' and 'Results per page'), which adds meaning beyond the schema titles. However, it lacks details like default behavior, constraints, or indexing (e.g., 1-based vs 0-based).

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 'List all groups', identifying the verb 'list' and resource 'groups'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the resource is unique among the siblings, making the purpose 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the tool name and description (i.e., when you need to list groups), but there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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