list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose pagination behavior—'returns one bounded page, not the full table'—which is useful. However, it does not mention order, side effects, or any other behavioral nuances that an agent might need to know for correctly interpreting results.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with a clear subject and an important behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds only essential context. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits details about the output format, default behavior, or filtering options beyond the mention of pagination. With no output schema and low parameter descriptions, agents may not have enough information to fully understand the tool's behavior, especially for parameters like 'type' and 'active'.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only 'query' is described). The description only vaguely references 'limit/offset paginate' without explaining the parameters' semantics. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage by clarifying 'type' or 'active' parameters, leaving agents with insufficient information to use them correctly.

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 groups', which is a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from siblings like create_group, update_group, and other list_* tools by naming the exact resource being listed.

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 context that this tool lists groups, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the resource is specific, the context is clear but exclusions are not stated.

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