list_category_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says 'List' (implying read-only) and enumerates the return data, which gives the agent a clear behavioral model. It does not mention side effects, but for a list operation, the non-destructive nature is adequately implied.

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 three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, output, and usage context. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded with the main verb, and contains no extraneous information.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential elements: what it lists, what it returns, and why it is useful. No missing context or ambiguity, even with sibling tools present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and the schema already reflects the empty parameter list. No further compensation is needed.

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 clearly states 'List all category groups from Actual Budget' with a specific verb and resource, and further distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories by focusing on groups rather than categories. It also specifies the return fields (id, name, income group), making the purpose explicit and unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context with 'Use this to understand how categories are organised,' indicating when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to choose this over category-listing tools.

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