List Outcome Group Subgroups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-visibility are covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that only immediate children are returned, not the full subtree — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether an empty result means a leaf group.

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 defining constraint ('immediate child') appears before the qualifier. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it stops short of anything an agent could not already infer from the name.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essential scope. It leaves gaps on return shape (no output schema exists) and pagination behavior, and never clarifies how it relates to the neighboring outcome-group listing tools.

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% and each of the three parameters carries its own description (context_id, outcome_group_id, context_type enum). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the immediate child outcome groups') scoped to a parent group, which is more precise than a generic 'list outcomes'. The word 'immediate' conveys the hierarchical, non-recursive nature, but it does not name the sibling tools (list_outcome_groups, get_root_outcome_group) that an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied: to call this you must already hold a parent outcome_group_id, which hints at drill-down navigation. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_outcome_groups or list_outcome_group_links, nor any prerequisite guidance about needing a root group first.

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