List asset groups (active)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are paginated ('Page through'), that each entry includes membership shape and a 'display_tag' field, and that only active groups are returned. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only list operation, this is substantial behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with a simple schema and an output schema present, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned (membership shape, display_tag), the active filter, and the intended use. The one gap is explicit handling of pagination parameters, but the output schema likely includes cursor info, and the phrase 'Page through' is sufficient for an agent to infer basic usage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the limit and after_cursor parameters. It does not — it only says 'Page through' without explaining that limit controls page size and after_cursor provides pagination cursor. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, which itself has no descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool 'Page[s] through every active (non-archived) asset group in the deployment.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_archived_asset_groups and get_asset_group. The scope is explicit.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this before creating to avoid duplicating an existing group.' It implies that this tool is for active groups, contrasting with archived ones, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context, though not full when-not guidance.

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