apps__beta_groups__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which covers safety. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint pattern, making the operation's nature explicit. It does not mention pagination behavior or field filtering semantics beyond schema, but the annotations cover the key behavioral profile.

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 sentence followed by the endpoint reference. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word adds value. No fluff or 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?

Given the read-only annotations, simple list operation schema, and clear endpoint, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks some context about when to use pagination (next_url) or how fields_betaGroups affects response size (though schema explains that). It is complete for a straightforward list tool, but could benefit from mentioning that it only lists beta groups, not testers or builds within them.

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 schema already documents each parameter (id, limit, next_url, fields_betaGroups). The description only adds the 'id' meaning by showing it as path parameter in the endpoint. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('List the beta groups belonging to an app') and identifies the resource (beta groups) and scope (app-scoped). The HTTP endpoint [GET /v1/apps/{id}/betaGroups] reinforces the method and path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beta_groups__get (single beta group) and apps__list (apps list).

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 'belonging to an app' phrase clarifies it is the child-resource list under a specific app, and 'List' implies a read/list operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other beta group list variants (e.g., beta_groups__list, builds__beta_groups__list) or mention any pagination or prerequisite like knowing the app ID.

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