list_yara_groups

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results include rule counts, which helps set expectations beyond the bare readOnlyHint without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to indicating scope, selection criterion, and the nature of the returned data.

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 listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, what subset it covers, and that counts are included.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 and resource: 'List ransomware groups that have YARA detection rules'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_groups, list_ioc_groups, and get_yara_rules by tying the listing specifically to YARA rule availability and including rule counts.

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 makes the selection condition explicit: it is for ransomware groups that have YARA detection rules, not all groups or groups with IOCs. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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