List custom groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context that it returns 'all' custom groups (implying no filtering and possibly large result), plus the field set and epoch millis timestamps. However, it does not discuss pagination, performance, or the behavior of the 'raw' parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 one sentence that is information-dense without redundancy. It front-loads the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('all custom groups') and packs the field list into a single clause. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and their formats (e.g., epoch millis). It does not mention pagination or response envelope, but for this level of complexity the description is largely complete. Slight deduction for not specifying if all results are returned in one response or paginated.

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 schema fully describes the single optional 'raw' parameter (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 tool retrieves all custom groups and enumerates the exact fields returned (ID, name, type, category, domain, timestamps). The verb 'retrieves' is specific, and the resource 'custom groups' distinguishes it from sibling reporting tools.

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 (when you need to list custom groups) from the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling list/report tools. No exclusions are provided, so guidance remains at the implied level.

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