List Outcome Group Outcomes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' aligns with that. The word 'directly' adds a useful nuance about non-recursive behavior, but the description does not mention pagination, ordering, or what happens if no outcomes exist. It adds minor context beyond the annotations but not substantial behavioral detail.

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 filler. The action and scope are stated immediately, and every word earns its place. This is an example of excellent 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys that the tool returns outcomes. It clarifies the direct relationship to a specific group, which is the key contextual nuance. It does not cover edge cases or relationships to sibling tools, but the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable.

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 provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with descriptions, so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., formatting, constraints, or relationships between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 action (List), the resource (linked outcomes), and the scope (directly under a specific outcome group). The word 'directly' distinguishes it from recursive listing of subgroups, and the phrasing makes it clear this is not about listing groups themselves. This differentiates it from siblings like list_outcome_groups and list_outcome_group_subgroups.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it lists direct outcomes under a group, but it does not mention alternatives such as list_outcome_group_subgroups for nested groups or list_outcome_group_links for links. An agent would need to infer the usage from the name and description, which is acceptable but not explicit.

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