List survey groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it resolves the authentication model (configured service account rather than an explicit session key), which is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations do not carry.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the operation and its scope come first, the RemoteControl method name and auth constraint follow. Nothing is padded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations plus the auth sentence cover the safety and access model. The only minor gap is the lack of any disambiguation from the near-identically named list_groups sibling, which would help in a toolset this large.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (username, response_format) are fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'visible to a user' loosely gestures at the username parameter's effect but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 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 a specific verb and resource ('List survey groups') plus a scope qualifier ('visible to a user'), which is enough to identify the operation. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling limesurvey_list_groups, so an agent must infer the distinction (survey-organizing groups vs. question groups).

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 useful context ('visible to a user') and an auth directive ('do not provide a session key'), which indirectly tells the agent how to call it. But it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as limesurvey_list_groups or limesurvey_list_surveys, leaving selection to inference.

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