list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals the output shape, including the 'up to 5 member names' truncation detail, but it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, or how the cluster parameter affects scope.

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 single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key output details. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted text.

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 and covers return details, so the description does not need to restate everything. However, the cluster parameter is left unexplained and there is no usage context, which is a notable gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, 'cluster', is not explained in the tool description. An agent must guess what cluster means and what the empty default implies, so the description adds no value beyond the parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('OpenShift Groups'), and states the result fields (member count and up to 5 member names). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users, create_group, or add_user_to_group.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user, create_group, or add_user_to_group. There is no mention of preconditions, exclusions, or what cluster context is expected.

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