resource_group_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'list' without disclosing pagination behavior, result ordering, permissions needed, or whether it returns all or paginated results. This is severely lacking.

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 extremely short, but brevity sacrifices completeness. It does not earn its place because it lacks critical context that would help the agent. An effective description should be front-loaded with purpose and constraints.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain return values. It fails to do so, and does not mention pagination behavior, sorting, or any example. The tool is simple but the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use it.

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 should compensate. It adds minimal Chinese translations ('页码' for page, '每页数量' for page_size) but does not explain constraints like range, starting index, or effect of defaults. The schema already provides names and defaults, so added value is marginal.

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 '获取资源组列表' (get resource group list), specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like 'workflow_list' or 'instance_list', missing a chance to highlight unique scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention when not to use, prerequisites, or context (e.g., 'use for listing resource groups; use auth_group_list for authentication groups').

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