List User Segments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds domain context ('segments control article visibility'), but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether the list is exhaustive for the workspace.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the meaning of the resource and how the output is consumed. No filler or repetition.

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, read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns conceptually (segment IDs) and how they are used. Minor gap: it does not describe the shape of each returned segment beyond the ID.

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, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly avoids inventing any input requirements.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List all user segments') and goes further by explaining what a segment is ('control article visibility (who can view)'). It does not name a sibling or explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent listing tools like list_permission_groups, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It hints at downstream usage ('Use the ID when creating or updating articles'), which tells the agent why the result matters, but it never states when to prefer this tool or what alternatives exist (e.g., permission groups vs. user segments). The 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.