list_outcome_groups

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral info beyond stating it lists groups. The description does not contradict annotations, but it offers no additional details like pagination or permissions, making it adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not elaborate on the structure of returned outcome groups (e.g., fields like id, title, parent group). Although the openWorldHint provides some flexibility, more detail about the return format would improve completeness for a listing tool.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully describes both parameters (context_type and context_id) with enums and descriptions. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'List all outcome groups for an account or course context.', using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('outcome groups'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_outcome_group_outcomes or list_outcome_group_subgroups by specifying the scope (all groups in a context) rather than subsets.

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 such as list_outcome_group_outcomes or get_root_outcome_group. Only the name and context imply it's for listing top-level groups, but explicit usage context is missing.

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