list_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior. It says 'Read-only; no side effects' and explains the semantics of each kind, including that tags never affect posture or credit while systems drive rollups. It also details the response shapes (e.g., returns tags array vs. items array with id, name, description, model_count). This goes beyond a simple statement and gives the agent a clear mental model.

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 well-structured: it opens with a clear one-line purpose, then expands to define terminology and contrast the two kinds, and ends with usage guidance. Each sentence adds value; there is no fluff. Despite its length, it is concise because every detail earns its place.

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's complexity (two kinds with different response shapes), the description is complete. It explains both kinds, their implications, and response formats, and it gives context on when to use the tool. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values in prose. It also clarifies common use cases and points to a relevant sibling tool, covering all necessary contextual information.

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 adds substantial meaning to the 'kind' parameter by explaining the two valid values, their semantic differences, and expected response shapes. However, it does not add any explanation for the 'server_version' parameter, which is required but lacks a schema description. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap for server_version, so it is only adequate.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'List the workspace's groups of a given kind.' It specifies the resource (workspace groups) and the action (list), and further differentiates the two kinds with distinct response shapes. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'list_model_groups' by noting its scope, making it unique and 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Discover group IDs here before the group risk/compliance/export tools or before adding/removing members.' It also explicitly tells when not to use it and points to an alternative: 'For a single model's tag memberships use list_model_groups.' This is clear and helpful context.

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