List classes by data group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and the phrase 'with names and descriptions' discloses the expected output shape. However, the description says nothing about ordering, pagination, error behavior, or what happens for invalid/unknown data groups.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no wasted words. It is efficient, though the singular 'Elephant' jargon could have been defined without harming conciseness.

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 tool with one required parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation and return content. It lacks an example of a valid data group and does not specify error handling, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 fully describes the only parameter groupName, including its case-insensitive behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reusing the term 'data group'; there are no examples, constraints, or format hints beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('classes for an Elephant data group'), and even indicates the returned content ('names and descriptions'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list tools like listPropertiesByClassName, but the resource and grouping concept make the core purpose clear.

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 given for when to choose this tool over alternatives such as listPropertiesByClassName, listPublishedCounties, or queryClasses. The intended context can be inferred from the tool name, but the description does not state it or name any exclusions.

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