List resource groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond annotations: the result list is filtered by an allowlist, meaning it may not reflect every resource group in the subscription. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. 'List resource groups in a subscription (filtered by allowlist)' conveys resource, scope, and a behavioral caveat in nine words, and every element earns its place.

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, one-optional-parameter listing tool, the definition is essentially complete: annotations carry safety and open-world semantics, the schema covers the parameter, and the description explains the allowlist filtering. The only shortfall is the absence of any sibling-routing context.

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 100%, so the subscription parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; its 'in a subscription' phrasing merely mirrors the existing parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (List), a distinct resource (resource groups), and a scope (in a subscription), and adds the allowlist filtering nuance. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools by resource type — list_resources and list_subscriptions are obviously different — though it never names them or explicitly contrasts itself.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus list_subscriptions, list_resources, or get_resource. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints; the only usage signal is the implied one from the verb and resource type.

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