list_groups

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the operation lists all groups, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or discuss pagination limits beyond schema. Adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose concisely, second adds actionable usage context. No redundant words, front-loaded with core functionality.

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?

Provides sufficient context for a list tool: explains what groups are (teams that own tickets), how they relate to IDs, and how to use the IDs in other operations. Lacks return format details, but acceptable for a simple list query.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (page, per_page) with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic information about parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'ALL agent groups (teams that own tickets)'. It specifies the Zendesk instance context and adds concrete use cases for discovering group IDs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool to discover group IDs for update_ticket and search operations. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the given guidance is practical and directly tied to common ticket workflows.

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