list_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action without revealing side effects, permissions, pagination, or return characteristics. No additional behavioral context beyond the core function is given.

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 a single sentence of six words, efficiently conveying the essential action and scope with no redundancy. It is well front-loaded and lacks unnecessary detail.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core functionality. However, it does not describe the return value structure, potential pagination, or any edge cases, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 schema already documents company_id as 'Company ID' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. It does not elaborate on requiredness, format, or constraints, thus meeting the baseline for covered schema.

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 the action ('Lists') and the resource ('all groups') scoped to a company. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_channels and list_conversations by specifying 'groups' as the entity.

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 description implies the use case — to retrieve all groups for a given company_id. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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