bgi_list_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '列出' implies a read-only enumeration, but the description never states that it has no side effects, whether results are cached or fetched live, or whether the list can be empty or large.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste. The resource and the returned fields are front-loaded, and there is no restatement of the tool name.

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 tool, the description covers the purpose and sketches the return shape (name/type/status), which matters because no output schema exists. Minor gaps remain: no mention of ordering, emptiness, or how 'items' relate to strategies or one-dragons.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by stating what each listed item contains (name/type/status), which is useful since it has no output 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?

It states a specific verb and resource: 'list all configuration groups and their items', and even hints at the contents (name/type/status). The 'all' signals no filtering, which separates it from bgi_create_group or bgi_run_groups by intent, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this to enumerate configured groups before creating or running one', but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative such as a filtered sibling like bgi_list_strategies.

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