lc_list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'list... accessible', implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose behaviors such as pagination (implied by limit parameter), ordering, rate limits, or what happens when no groups are found. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's runtime behavior.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no extraneous information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Despite the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return format (list of group objects), pagination behavior, or any limitations. An agent needs more context to use this tool effectively.

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 sole parameter 'limit' has a default of 100 and no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The tool description does not explain its purpose or effect, leaving the agent to infer from the name. This adds no value beyond the schema.

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 it lists organization groups with a scope ('accessible to the authenticated identity'), distinguishing it from other list tools like lc_list_users or lc_list_orgs. The verb 'List' and resource 'organization groups' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_get_group (for a single group) or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for when this tool should be invoked.

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