get_resource_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (list of dicts with keys) and the optional filter behavior, which are useful behavioral details. It does not mention side effects or state changes, but as a read-only list operation, the 'List' verb implies safety and the return format disclosure is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: a leading summary sentence, a parameter explanation, and a return format specification. Every line earns its place, with no unnecessary 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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and return structure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_resource_groups' beyond listing sizes, and it omits potential details like whether all groups are returned by default or if the filter affects only results. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the 'rscgrp' parameter, so the description compensates by explaining it as 'filter by specific resource group name.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more specific about pattern matching or case sensitivity.

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 tool's purpose: 'List available resource groups and their sizes on Genkai.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('resource groups and their sizes'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_resource_groups' by explicitly mentioning sizes.

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 provides context for when to use this tool (to list resource groups with sizes) and how to filter with the 'rscgrp' parameter, but it does not explicitly compare against the sibling tool 'list_resource_groups'. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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