b2_list_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it specifies a 100-group limit, pagination via nextGroupId, and the authorization requirement. These are not in the annotations and help the agent understand expected behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical details (limit, pagination, authorization) are included without redundancy. It is a model of efficient writing.

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 simple list operation with no output schema, the description covers the key points: the scope ('active Groups'), the cap and pagination mechanism, and a prerequisite (authorization). It does not describe the response shape, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a pagination hint.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description's mention of 'Returns up to 100 groups' and 'use nextGroupId for pagination' loosely relates to maxGroupCount and startGroupId but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 a clear resource ('active Groups'), and adds the qualifier 'administered by a Group admin account,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like b2_list_group_members (which lists members) and b2_list_buckets. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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 states the required context (Group admin account, Partner API authorization) and implies the tool is for listing groups, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The distinction from b2_list_group_members is inferable but not spelled out, so guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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