List Permission Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the description correctly focuses on what annotations cannot express: a hard authorization prerequisite that makes the call fail without the Guide admin or Help Center manager role. It doesn't say anything about ordering, size limits, or whether the list is paginated, which is the remaining gap for an open-world list call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return fields, then usage routing, then the auth caveat — a good information order. The single long sentence with chained semicolons is dense and would scan better split into two or three sentences, but no clause is filler.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full explanatory burden and does so: it names the returned fields, the permission prerequisite, the downstream consumers (create_article/update_article), and the sibling that handles the complementary permission concern. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 takes zero parameters (additionalProperties: false, empty properties), so there is no parameter semantics to convey. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies; no useful parameter information is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list Guide permission groups) plus the semantic meaning ('control who can edit and publish an article') and the exact fields returned (id, name, built-in flag). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that handles the adjacent concern ('to control who can view an article instead, use list_user_segments').

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use cases: obtaining permission_group_id for create_article or changing it via update_article. It also names the alternative tool (list_user_segments) for the view-permission case and offers a shortcut (reuse the permission_group_id from get_article), covering both branches an agent would face.

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