gorelo_list_groups

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

The word 'List' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is meaningful since no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose any additional behavior such as pagination, ordering, whether inactive groups are included, or permission requirements. This is acceptable but minimal.

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?

One concise sentence that leads with the action and identifies the resource and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or boilerplate content.

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 parameterless list tool, the description fully states what the tool returns and its scope. There is no output schema, and the description could mention return shape or pagination, but the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('technician groups'), and adds scope ('configured for the service provider'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools for tickets, clients, users, assets, and other resources.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve the provider's technician groups. There is no sibling tool for groups, so no routing ambiguity exists. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but that's not necessary here.

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