hex-list-groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing about pagination, result size, permissions, or return shape. The claim of listing 'all' groups actively sits in tension with an undocumented 'limit' parameter, which is left unexplained.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it tips into under-specification rather than tightness.

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 paginated list tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves every operational detail to guesswork. An agent cannot determine how to page, sort, or bound the result.

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% and four parameters (after, limit, sortBy, sortDirection) are each undocumented in both schema and description. The word 'all' arguably misleads about the presence of a limit/pagination cursor, and nothing compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('List all groups'), making the operation unambiguous against siblings like hex-create-group and hex-delete-group. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent list tools (hex-list-users, hex-list-projects) beyond the resource noun implied by the name.

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 indication of when to use this versus hex-get-group or other list siblings, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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