list_csap_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately describes the read-only nature (listing data) and the return format, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or any behaviors beyond returning the list. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and directly states the function and output.

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 list operation, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, source ordinance, and return fields. It lacks explicit mention of ordering, filtering, or potential edge cases, but these are not critical for a straightforward listing tool.

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 100% with both parameters described in detail (e.g., group_code shows example 'g01' and behavior when omitted). The description itself does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: listing the 19 CSAP groups according to a specific ordinance, and specifies the returned fields (code, name, CID-10 codes). It is distinct from sibling tools that retrieve indicators or classify conditions.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_icsap or classify_as_csap). It provides factual information about the output but lacks guidance on selection criteria or conditions for use.

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