list_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that listing is scoped to a session, but discloses nothing about permissions, result size/pagination, ordering, or what happens on an empty session – thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 short sentence with the verb+resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the minimal description is nearly sufficient, but it leaves the meaning of "sessão" and the shape/count of returned groups unexplained. Adequate but with a clear 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The only wrinkle is that the description references "uma sessão" (a session) even though no session parameter exists in the schema, which could momentarily puzzle an agent about how the session is supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lista todos os grupos" – lists all groups), which is clear and distinct from mutation siblings like create_group, update_group, and add_participants. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest read sibling get_group_participants, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. An agent must infer on its own that this is the read path for group enumeration versus get_group_participants or get_webhooks.

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