list_object_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List all' conveys a read-only, non-mutating operation and the 'all' scopes the result, but the description does not state pagination, ordering, authentication, or response shape. This is acceptable for a trivial no-parameter list but still leaves behavioral details to inference.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds a useful parenthetical. Every word contributes; there is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

Low complexity and no parameters make invocation trivial, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The agent is left to assume the response shape, pagination behavior, and access requirements, so the description is minimally viable rather than 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already documents 100% of what little there is, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter meaning because there are none.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List all object groups') and adds a clarifying purpose: 'used for organizing accounts/piggy banks.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_piggy_banks and list_accounts by pointing at the grouping construct itself.

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 parenthetical implies the intended context — retrieving the grouping containers rather than the accounts or piggy banks inside them — but the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. No competing tool or exclusion is mentioned, so guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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