list_groups

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data rather than the description. The description adds the tenant scope and pagination behavior, which is useful, but does not describe filter capabilities or auth/rate-limit context. A moderate score is appropriate given the annotations do the safety heavy-lifting.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then return/pagination details. No filler, though the mention of 'logical collections of users' is somewhat tangential but still informative.

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?

A read-only list tool with no output schema, readOnlyHint covering safety, and complete parameter documentation in the schema. The description covers tenant scope and pagination but omits return field details or link to alternatives among the many group-listing siblings. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly (skip, filter, order_by, page_size). The description only names the parameter families (page_size, skip, filter, order_by) without elaborating on syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 (list) and resource (groups) scoped to the tenant, which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling group-listing tools such as get_groups, scim_list_groups, or list_user_groups, leaving the agent to guess which one applies.

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 on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling group/list tools. There's no mention of prerequisites or conditions selecting this tool over get_groups or scim_list_groups. Usage is only implied by the name.

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