List Outcome Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavior beyond stating it lists groups; it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or the top-level scope (versus nested). The word 'all' could subtly conflict with openWorldHint, but is not a direct contradiction.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant language or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 simple nature and good schema/annotations, the description is adequate but lacks a key clarification: whether it returns only top-level groups or includes nested subgroups (given sibling tools like list_outcome_group_subgroups). It also omits any mention of pagination or result structure, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage (context_type enum and context_id). The description only reinforces the account/course context without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('outcome groups') and clearly scopes to 'account or course context', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outcome_group (single group) or list_outcome_group_subgroups (nested groups). It fully clarifies what the tool does.

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 conveys a clear usage context: listing all outcome groups for a given context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools (e.g., get_root_outcome_group) or mention when not to use it. There is implied usage but no exclusions or alternatives stated.

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