ctx_tool_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload in detail (group name, one-line purpose, member tool names, how many are already loaded, and the load mechanism). It implicitly signals a read-only listing operation, though it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and the key action ('search here first') in sentence two. The example enumeration (code-graph lookup, relay handoff, etc.) is somewhat list-heavy but genuinely aids discovery of unloaded tools.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by describing exactly what is returned and how to act on it (load a group via ctx_load_tool_group). Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and schema coverage is effectively 100%.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('additional groups of ContextQ tools not loaded in this session by default'), and immediately differentiates itself from all siblings as a meta-discovery/index tool. An agent can tell it apart from ctx_search or ctx_list without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Search here first if a ContextQ tool you expect ... is missing from your current tool list.' It also names the follow-up sibling tool (ctx_load_tool_group) and the action to take, leaving nothing to inference.

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