signupgenius_list_groups

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly stating that it returns groupid, title, and member count for each group. It also clarifies the scope (created by the authenticated user). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 two concise sentences, with the main action front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives return value details. No words are wasted.

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 that there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return fields. The tool has only one optional param and a readOnly annotation, so the description is sufficient for a simple list tool. A minor gap is lack of pagination or default sort behavior, but this is not critical for expected usage.

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%, with the single 'sort' parameter fully documented in the schema (enum asc/desc and description). The description adds no additional parameter info, so the baseline 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 the tool lists groups created by the authenticated user, specifies the resource (groups) and the action (list), and clarifies the scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_group_members and get_group_member by focusing on the group collection itself, not members.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when listing groups owned by the authenticated user. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the scope is well-defined and no exclusions are needed. The sibling names themselves differentiate this from signup/report tools.

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