list_beta_groups

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Returns are described but side effects are not mentioned.

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?

Description is concise: one sentence for purpose, one for returns. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly improved by including usage context, but as is, it's efficient.

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 no output schema, the description includes return fields. However, it lacks details on pagination, default sorting, or how the limit parameter interacts with the list. With 3 parameters, additional context would help, but it's minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much for parameters. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—e.g., it doesn't explain how is_internal affects results or the effect of limit. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'List beta groups for an app' and specifies return fields (name, internal status, public link info, creation date). This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, as no other tool lists beta 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_beta_testers. No prerequisites or context about filtering or ordering. The description only states the basic action.

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