conn_group_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only listing and what is included, but it offers no caveats about return format, ordering, authentication, or failure behavior. This is adequate for a trivial list tool but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool returns with no filler or repetition. Every word 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple listing purpose, the description is nearly complete: it names the entity and the key fields returned. It could add a note about output format or empty results, but for this complexity level it is quite sufficient.

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, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs, and no additional parameter guidance is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and identifies the exact resource ('grupos') plus the associated data returned (scopes, default, conexiones). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like conn_list, conn_group_create, and conn_group_add_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?

The phrase 'Lista todos los grupos' provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever you need an unfiltered view of all groups and their links. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no other sibling is a group-list tool, so the context is sufficient and there are no exclusions to state.

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