list_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the optional search filter, which is a functional detail rather than a behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, result ordering, or output format. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of annotations, and complete parameter descriptions, the description is sufficient. It could potentially clarify default behavior or output but is not incomplete for the intended use case.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'query' parameters fully described in the input schema. The description's mention of 'optional search filter' adds minimal value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists groups, with an optional search filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group (singular) and create_group/update_group. The verb 'list' plus resource 'groups' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for listing groups, which is clear from context, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_group for a single group). There is no explicit exclusion or alternative recommendation, so it only provides implied guidance.

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