list_my_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about authentication scope and course scoping but does not disclose return format or pagination. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 no output schema and sparse parameter info, the description omits expected return structure, potential prerequisites (e.g., enrollment), or filtering behavior. While the tool is simple, an agent may need more guidance on what 'groups' entails and how results are presented.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies course_id is the subject via 'dentro de una materia', but does not explicitly name the parameter or explain its format. This gives enough inferential clarity but leaves some ambiguity.

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 ('Lista' = lists), resource ('grupos' = groups), and scope ('de la cuenta autenticada dentro de una materia' = of the authenticated account within a subject). It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings, none of which list groups.

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 clear context (authenticated account, within a subject) that indicates when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, no sibling tool performs a similar function, so lack of explicit differentiation is acceptable.

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