list_resource_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'list', but it does not state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It provides no additional behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 that front-loads the action ('List all known Genkai resource groups') and includes the key output detail (type). Every word earns its place, with no wasted content.

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 an output schema, the description is sufficient: it states the scope ('all known') and the output attribute (type). The output schema likely documents the return structure, so the description does not need to elaborate further. It is complete for its 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Given the baseline for 0 params is 4, the score reflects that the schema and description are fully aligned.

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 lists all known Genkai resource groups and their type (cpu/gpu/gpu_mig). The verb 'list' and resource 'resource groups' are specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_resource_groups', so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_resource_groups'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The usage context is implied (discovery of available resource groups) but not articulated.

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