List requester groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing about pagination semantics, ordering, completeness of results, or what a page returns — all relevant for a paginated list call.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it spends its single sentence repeating the title instead of supplying any disambiguating information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description still omits scope (all groups vs. a filtered subset), how pagination should be driven, and how this differs from the several other group-listing tools in the sibling set.

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% with only two optional pagination parameters that are fully documented (page starting at 1, per_page max 100). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but with complete schema documentation 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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and title ("List requester groups"), adding no scope, filter, or resource detail. It doesn't distinguish this from siblings like get_requester_group, get_all_agent_groups, or list_requester_group_members.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus get_requester_group (single group) or list_requester_group_members. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the fact that it takes no required parameters.

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