list_groups

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not mention behavioral aspects such as idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read-only list tool, some transparency about safety (e.g., 'this is a read-only operation') would be helpful.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus example questions. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential output fields for a simple list tool. Since an output schema exists, the agent can infer exact structure. No filtering or pagination info is needed for a basic list-all.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to explain them. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds value by detailing what the response contains (group names, IDs, etc.).

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 'List account groups in the Akamai hierarchy' and specifies returned fields (names, IDs, parent relationships, contract IDs). It is distinct from siblings which target different resources like edgeworkers or DNS zones.

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?

Example questions provide clear usage context ('What groups exist?'). Although not explicitly stating when not to use, the list of siblings shows that other tools serve different purposes, so confusion is unlikely.

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