List Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: pagination semantics (one page returned, total_count and has_more report the full set) and the exact scope of what is returned versus platform-specific groups.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then scope, field contents, and a concrete example in roughly four compact sentences. The field enumeration (entity_id, name, state, members, icon, all mode) is slightly list-heavy but still earns its place by telling the agent what a group record looks like.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value detail is somewhat redundant, but the pagination framing (total_count/has_more) and the old-style-group scope are the key things an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly. Nothing essential is missing for a read-only paginated list tool.

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 limit and offset are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The trailing EXAMPLE demonstrates offset in use, which is mildly reinforcing, but adds no format or constraint detail the schema does not already carry.

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 clear verb+resource (list Home Assistant entity groups with member entities) and sharpens the scope by excluding platform-specific groups like light or cover groups, which are separate entities. It does not name a specific sibling tool (e.g. ha_config_list_helpers or ha_get_entity) as an alternative, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implied rather than stated: the note that only old-style groups from group.set/YAML are returned tells the agent the result set is narrower than all group-like entities, and the example hints at pagination. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative tool, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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