list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It only says 'List all groups,' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly disclose that it is non-destructive or safe, nor does it clarify that 'all' is constrained by pagination (though skip/take are documented). The parenthetical about groups' purpose adds semantic context, not behavioral transparency.

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 concise and effectively front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a brief purpose note and a clean args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits any mention of sorting, filtering, or limits beyond the pagination defaults, and it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool relative to closely related siblings. The purpose note helps, but the description remains minimal for a tool in a large family.

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 input schema has no descriptions for skip or take (0% coverage), so the description compensates fully by explaining 'Pagination offset' and 'Number of records to return.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type and default information, covering all parameters.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'groups,' and the parenthetical explains the purpose of groups (organizing categories, queues, users, or profiles), which helps differentiate it from sibling list tools like list_queues or list_users. This is specific and distinguishes the tool's scope.

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?

The description implies usage by naming the resource and its organizing role, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of other list tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is present but lacks direct alternative guidance.

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