printix_list_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose pagination and tenant scoping, but it does not mention defaults, ordering, query matching behavior, or output format. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 short, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, scope, and pagination behavior. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple read-only list/search tool with a fully documented input schema, the description provides the essential purpose and pagination behavior. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves open details like default page size and result shape, so it is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds only the alignment of 'search' with query and 'paged' with page/pageSize, without adding defaults, bounds, or parameter interactions.

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 states a specific action ('List/search'), a specific resource ('Printix groups'), and a scope ('for the tenant'), plus pagination. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like printix_get_group, which retrieves a single group.

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 when you need to list or search groups rather than fetch one group. It does not explicitly name the alternative get_group tool or state exclusions, but the 'list/search' phrasing and the sibling tool names make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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