gorelo_list_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'configured for the service provider' adds useful tenancy scoping context that annotations don't convey, but nothing is said about result size, ordering, or whether inactive groups are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of the tool name verbatim. It could only be improved by adding one clause on usage or result scope, which would still keep it tight.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin. With no output schema, the agent gets no hint about the shape of returned group objects (id, name, members) or whether pagination applies.

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 and the baseline applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% with an empty object, confirming no hidden parameter semantics are missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the technician groups') and scopes it to the service provider, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like gorelo_list_users or gorelo_list_billing_roles. It stops short of explicitly naming a nearest alternative, but the resource is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 indication of when to call this versus other directory-style list tools (users, billing roles, work types), nor any note about prerequisites such as needing group membership data elsewhere. The agent must infer that this is the discovery call for technician grouping.

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