List groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds only that pagination is optional, which hints at an unbounded default result but does not confirm it, and says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the one behavioral modifier (pagination) are stated immediately.

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?

With an output schema handling return values, 100% schema coverage for all four parameters, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient for this low-complexity list tool. It falls short only on default-result behavior when range is omitted and on any routing hint versus glpi_get_group.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all four parameters (range, fields, format, expand_dropdowns) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List GLPI groups') plus the scoping modifier 'with optional pagination'. It is easy to distinguish from the singular glpi_get_group sibling by the verb, but the description never names that distinction explicitly.

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 guidance is 'optional pagination', which is not a when-to-use statement. There is no mention of when to prefer this over glpi_get_group, glpi_search, or glpi_list_ticket_groups, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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