list_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all groups' implies a read operation, but it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, if there's pagination, or what happens when no groups exist. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This represents optimal efficiency for a simple tool description.

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 read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar listing tools as siblings, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'groups' means in this context, how results are returned, or how this differs from other organizational listing tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description accurately reflects that no parameters are needed ('List all groups'), which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all groups in the organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_departments' or 'list_teams' which might also list organizational units, though the resource specificity ('groups') provides some implicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_all_employees', 'list_employees', and 'search_employees', there's no indication of how 'list_groups' relates to these or when it's the appropriate choice for organizational data retrieval.

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