List archived user groups (ICP-level)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that the tool lists 'soft-deleted' groups, which hints at a read-only operation on a filtered dataset, but it does not explain return details, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 concise, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple list operation, though it could have included a verb or usage note without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has a simple interface with two optional pagination parameters and an output schema. The description conveys the core resource and scope, but lacks any context about the meaning of 'ICP-level' or the distinction from active groups. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' and 'after_cursor' parameters. Although these are standard pagination parameters with self-explanatory names, the description offers no added meaning, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 'Soft-deleted user groups at the ICP level' clearly identifies the resource (user groups) and scope (soft-deleted/archived, ICP level). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_user_groups (active) and list_archived_rule_groups (different resource). The verb 'list' is implied by the title, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explicitly state that this is for archived/soft-deleted groups only, nor does it mention using list_user_groups for active groups. Usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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