agora_list_groups

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

Without annotations, the description must carry behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the returned content is 'untrusted remote content' and includes member counts, but it omits read-only status (though implied), permission requirements, and side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a secondary usage note. No wasted words, though the second sentence is only tangentially about this tool.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed (public work groups), what is returned (member counts), and a security warning. It does not explain pagination, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to describe.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('public work groups') and adds member counts, making the purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like agora_create_group or agora_join_group, but the 'list' verb separates it naturally.

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 only usage guidance is 'Prefer mentioning a relevant @group over @todos broadcasts,' which is a weak preference about referencing groups rather than explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance for calling this tool. No alternatives (e.g., agora_list_spaces) are mentioned.

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