List Groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only; no side effects,' discloses that the two kinds have different response shapes, and explains the semantic consequences of each kind (e.g., tags never affect posture/credit, system groups drive rollups). This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and safety behavior, then uses clear headings and bullets for the kind distinction, and closes with usage guidance and an alternative. Every section earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, output shapes, and usage context, and the output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not a burden. It is excellent except for one notable gap: the required server_version parameter is never explained. This prevents full completeness for correct invocation.

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 significantly enriches the kind parameter by explaining its two allowed values, their semantics, and exact response shapes. However, server_version, a required parameter, is neither described in the schema nor mentioned in the description. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description compensates for kind but leaves a full required parameter unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List the workspace's groups of a given kind.' It then distinguishes the two kinds and explicitly names the sibling list_model_groups as the alternative for a single model's tags, so the agent can tell this tool apart without guessing.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Discover group IDs here before the group risk/compliance/export tools or before adding/removing members.' It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'For a single model's tag memberships use list_model_groups.' This is clear routing guidance.

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