list_resource_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('list') but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, permissions, or whether it returns all resource groups across the entire workspace without limits.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could potentially include more context without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate. However, it does not mention that it returns all resource groups without filters or ordering, leaving some ambiguity. It is complete enough for a simple list 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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level details, but according to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a tool with no parameters.

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 'List all resource groups in the workspace' clearly states the verb (list) and the resource (resource groups). This distinguishes it from other list_* siblings that target different entities.

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 using this tool when a list of all resource groups is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other list tools or when not to use it. For a simple list-all tool, this is minimally adequate.

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