list_groups

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

The description discloses that it returns raw console output and mentions the List Group command. However, without annotations, it lacks explicit statement of read-only nature or side effects. The behavior is fairly transparent but could be improved.

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 very concise, using a clear docstring format with Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention that omitting both parameters lists all groups, but the context is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining the meaning and usage of both parameters, including the range query relationship between group_id and end_group_id.

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 the tool lists all defined groups on the grandMA2 console, with optional filtering by group ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools that create, delete, or annotate 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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools to consider for related tasks.

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