b24_groups_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lista' does convey a read-only intent, and the filtered listing behavior is stated. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response format, or any other operational details that would be useful without annotations.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then names the key filtering capability. No words are wasted, and it is appropriately sized for a straightforward list tool.

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 5 parameters, a nested filter object, and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. Parameter details are mostly covered by the schema, but the description does not mention pagination, default select fields, or the response shape, which would help an agent know what to expect from the listing operation.

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 high at 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'estado y visibilidad' loosely aligns with the filter fields ACTIVE and VISIBLE, but the schema already documents these clearly with an example. The description adds little new meaning for limit, start, select, or webhook_url.

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 ('Lista' = lists) and the resource ('grupos de trabajo (workgroups y proyectos)'), adding that it supports status and visibility filters. It accurately conveys the scope of the tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from a specific sibling tool since no direct group-list alternative is present.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or context about prerequisites. The description implies listing use cases through the filter mention, but an agent is not told when this is the right choice versus other list tools such as b24_tasks_list or b24_users_list.

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