AccessGroupsGetList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds the filter-by-teacher/group-class/individual-class scope, but does not disclose behavior such as whether multiple filters combine, whether results are paginated, or what ordering is applied. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficient sentence with the main action front-loaded and the optional filter conditions stated compactly. There is no wasted wording or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 operation with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from closely related AccessGroups sibling tools, but the verb 'List' and the filter dimensions make the tool's role reasonably 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%, but the parameter descriptions only say 'integer (optional)', which carries little semantic value. The description adds the meaning that teacherId, groupClassId, and individualClassId are filter dimensions. However, it does not clarify whether the filters are mutually exclusive or combinable, so the added semantic value is modest.

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 a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('access groups'), and the available filter dimensions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like AccessGroupsGetDetails, AccessGroupsGetGroupClasses, or AccessGroupsGetIndividualClasses, but the plural 'list' framing makes the primary collection behavior apparent.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as AccessGroupsGetDetails or the more specific AccessGroupsGetGroupClasses/AccessGroupsGetIndividualClasses. The phrase 'optional filters' implies listing use cases, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternative routing.

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