list_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that all groups are listed and specifies the exact output contents (UUID, name, notes). It also reveals an important behavioral trait: UUIDs are the only stable way to reference groups elsewhere. The description could mention that it is read-only explicitly, but 'List' strongly implies no side effects, so this is acceptable.

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 exactly two sentences, both of which add value: the first states the function and output, the second provides essential guidance on UUIDs. There is no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is complete. It names the tool's scope ('all measurement groups in REW'), enumerates the return fields, and highlights a critical usage note. Given the low complexity, the description fully equips an agent to invoke and interpret the results.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds context about the output fields and UUID stability, which is relevant to using the tool effectively. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 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 clearly identifies the tool as listing all measurement groups in REW and specifies the returned fields (UUID, name, notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_measurements, which target a different resource. The verb 'List' plus the explicit resource 'measurement groups' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 second sentence provides clear context for when to use this tool: to obtain persistent UUIDs for groups that serve as stable references in other tools. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but it establishes a key use case. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer this is the go-to tool for discovering group identifiers.

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