List Project Distribution Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's addition of pagination metadata and required parameters is useful but not critical. The description is consistent with annotations and adds moderate context beyond them.

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 sentences plus endpoint info, all front-loaded and to the point. There is no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 listing tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately states the return type (paginated JSON array) and metadata. It could mention potential error cases or required permissions, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description mentions using page and per_page for pagination and that project_id is required, which adds marginal value over the schema. No further detail on the more specialized parameters.

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 action ('Return a list'), the resource ('Distribution Groups'), and the scope ('associated with a Project'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is project-specific, as opposed to other distribution group listing tools without a project context.

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 explicit use cases such as enumerating Directory records, obtaining a paginated overview, finding IDs, and filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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