groups_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned categories (enabled/disabled groups, tool counts, project mapping, installation instructions) and clarifies that it reports rather than installs ('再让用户装'), but it does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior or exact output format.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action '列出这个 MCP 的全部能力分组'. Every clause adds useful scope or action guidance, with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description explains what information is returned and how to act on missing capabilities. It does not specify exact output structure, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 4. The schema is empty and fully described, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics.

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 ('列出') and resource ('能力分组') and details the exact scope: enabled groups with tool counts, disabled groups due to missing CLI, corresponding open-source projects, and installation guidance. It is clearly distinct from the writing-focused sibling tools and serves as a meta-discovery tool when capabilities are absent.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: '工具列表里没有的能力，先查这里再让用户装', which is a clear context trigger. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as preferring direct sibling tools when a capability is already available, so it falls short of a 5.

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