list_group_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only a vague scope note ('the group running on their own computers, if any, and models other people's groups offer now'), which is ambiguous about whether results are merged from local and remote groups, whether empty results are possible, or how results are structured.

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?

It is a single sentence, but it is convoluted and not front-loaded: the agent must parse 'The AI the person can reach through groups of computers' plus a colon clause before any meaning emerges. The phrasing is indirect and does not lead with what the call does.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back. It gestures at 'own computers' versus 'other people's groups' but leaves the return shape, ordering, and empty-case behavior unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently predict the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is self-explanatory.

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 names the resource ('the AI the person can reach through groups of computers') but never states an action verb such as list or return. It reads as a noun phrase describing a concept rather than telling the agent this tool enumerates group models, and it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like list_ai_models or list_open_models.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the sibling discovery tools that would be alternatives (list_ai_models, list_open_models, ask_group_model). At best, 'the AI the person can reach' weakly implies a discovery call, which the agent must infer.

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