get_all_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by mentioning paging and a limit, which are behavioral traits beyond the name. However, it does not describe ordering, response format, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for a read-only list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavior. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score for 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists to define return values, so the description need not explain them. It covers the essential aspects: listing all groups with a limit and paging. It lacks a bit of context about ordering or filtering, but for a straightforward list tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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% since the schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'limit' parameter controls the maximum number of groups returned and mentions paging, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This adequately covers the only parameter.

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 'Get all groups' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'up to the specified limit, with paging' to clarify the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group_by_id and search_groups_by_name, which serve different purposes.

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 implies this tool is for enumerating all groups, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_groups_by_name for filtering or get_group_by_id for a single group. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and siblings, not articulated in the description.

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