list_beta_groups

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds only the scope note that both internal and external groups are returned, which is mild added context. It says nothing about pagination behavior or default result size beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Two short sentences, the resource and scope are front-loaded, and there is no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, fully documented parameters, and a safety annotation already present, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. A note on default result set or pagination would round it out, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so all four parameters (appId, limit, auto_paginate, isInternalGroup) are already documented in the schema itself. The description's 'filter by app or group type' merely restates those parameters at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (TestFlight beta groups) with explicit scope '(internal and external)'. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_beta_testers, but the resource is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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?

'Filter by app or group type' implies the conditions under which the tool is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions (e.g., that list_beta_testers is the tool for people, not groups). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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