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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'immediate' scope (non-recursive), but it does not disclose pagination behavior or response structure, which would be useful for a listing tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler words. Extremely concise and 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?

The tool is simple with three well-described parameters and read-only annotations. The description conveys the core behavior clearly. It omits response format and pagination details, but given the lack of output schema and the straightforward 'list' semantics, the description is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only restates the context of being under a specific outcome group.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'immediate child outcome groups' and scopes it to 'under a specific outcome group.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outcome_group (gets one group) or list_outcome_groups (likely lists all groups).

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 alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are given. The description implies usage when you have a specific outcome group ID and need its direct children, but it does not mention when to use list_outcome_groups or get_root_outcome_group instead. Guidance is only implied.

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