sw_list_groups

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the return structure (id, name, members) without contradicting the annotation. It does not provide additional behavioral context such as pagination or permission requirements, so the score stays at a mid level.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return details and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant text.

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 no parameters, the description sufficiently conveys what it returns and why to use it. It lacks details like ordering or pagination, but these are unlikely to be critical. The return fields are explicitly listed, compensating for the absence of an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds semantic scope by specifying 'all groups the current user belongs to', which conveys the filtering behavior even without a parameter. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all Splitwise groups the current user belongs to', and differentiates from siblings like sw_get_group by specifying the collection scope. It also notes the return fields (id, name, members), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 a concrete use case ('Use this to resolve a group name to its id'), which gives clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sw_get_group, but the 'List all' language implies the distinction.

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