teramind_list_behavior_policy_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the description notes that the response contains group IDs. However, it does not explicitly declare the absence of side effects, mention pagination, or describe the full response shape.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds two pieces of high-value context: the UI naming and the downstream dependency on the returned group IDs. No wasted words.

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 parameterless list tool, it covers the essentials: what behavior policy groups are, how they relate to policies, and what the response is used for. It does not explicitly contrast with teramind_list_behavior_policies or enumerate response fields, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap.

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, so no parameter explanations are needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 the exact operation ('List behavior policy groups') and identifies the resource as the containers that organize behavior policies. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling teramind_list_behavior_policies, and the UI mapping ('Behavior policy') adds extra clarity.

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?

Provides a concrete use case: group IDs from this response are required by teramind_get_behavior_policy_group. This tells the agent when this tool is needed, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when listing policies themselves via teramind_list_behavior_policies).

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