apps__subscription_groups__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP GET method and the app-scoped resource path. It does not mention pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or rate limits, but with annotations covering the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 plus the endpoint path. Every word is necessary, no filler, and it front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 rich schema (100% parameter documentation) and clear annotations, the description is adequate for a list tool. It identifies the resource, scope (by app id), and HTTP method. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the self-explanatory nature of listing resources. Slightly more detail about relationship inclusion or filtering could be useful, but the schema covers those, so the description is nearly complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, including 'id', 'sort', 'limit', 'include', filters, and fields. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states 'List the subscription groups belonging to an app' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subscription groups belonging to an app'). It also includes the exact HTTP endpoint, distinguishing it from other list tools that target different resources (e.g., apps__builds__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 description implies usage: you call this when you need subscription groups for a specific app, indicated by 'belonging to an app'. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or if alternatives exist (e.g., for filtering or different scopes). No comparison to sibling tools is given, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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