list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields, but doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or discuss potential limitations like pagination or permissions. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the return fields. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It states what the tool does and exactly what it returns, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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, and the schema covers 100% of them (vacuously). The description correctly omits parameter details, as there are none to explain. The baseline for zero params is 4, which is appropriate.

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 lists groups the user belongs to, using the specific verb 'list' and the resource 'Clink groups you belong to'. It also specifies the returned fields (slugs, names, descriptions, role), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_members or get_clinks.

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: use it when you need to see groups you belong to and your role in each. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'you belong to' scoping makes the usage situation obvious.

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