list_model_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only; no side effects' and explains the behavioral nuance that a model may appear under many tags because tag grouping is overlapping.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action and safety trait, and every sentence adds value: what is returned, the overlapping nature, and the correct alternatives for systems and tags.

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 read-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, return meaning, and sibling alternatives well. The main completeness gap is the unexplained server_version parameter in an otherwise high-clarity description.

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 reinforces model_id as 'the model whose groups (tags) to list,' but it never mentions or explains the required server_version parameter. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description needed to compensate for that gap and does not.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the groups a given model belongs to.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling list_groups by noting tags are the overlapping grouping kind and that per-model listing is only for tags.

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 gives explicit alternatives: use list_groups(kind="system") to enumerate systems, inspect system membership via get_group, and use list_groups(kind="tag") for all workspace tags. This clearly frames when to invoke this tool versus the siblings.

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