List Groups

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the scoping constraint ('workspace's groups') and optional filtering, but it does not describe pagination behavior or result shape beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and optional filter are immediately clear.

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 read-only listing tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. It could mention pagination or result ordering, but the cursor parameter and output schema cover much of that need.

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 three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond the schema and slightly narrows the query filter to 'name' even though the schema specifies 'name or email,' so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the workspace's groups') plus an optional filter. It is clear and distinguishes the tool from group membership and group mutation siblings by naming 'groups' as the resource, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by a part of their name' implies when the query parameter is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_group_members, list_workspace_members, or other listing tools. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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