ListResourceGroups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '获取资源组列表' implies a read-only listing operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by PageSize/PageNumber parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when filters return no results. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description itself is perfectly structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the single-phrase description is completely inadequate. The agent needs to understand not just what the tool does, but how to use it effectively - what filters are available, how pagination works, what the response format looks like, and when to choose this over other listing tools. The description fails to provide this necessary context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

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 '获取资源组列表' (Get resource group list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ListResourceGroups' in Chinese. It specifies the verb 'get/list' and resource 'resource groups', but lacks any differentiation from sibling tools or specific context about what makes this listing operation unique. While it states a basic purpose, it doesn't provide meaningful distinction.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many other 'List*' sibling tools (like ListProjects, ListResources, ListWorkflows), but no indication of when this specific resource group listing is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what scenarios it's designed for.

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