list_preset_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by noting that no token is required ('Токен не требуется'), a useful behavioral detail for an API context. This goes beyond the annotation's scope.

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 a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the token requirement concisely. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 that this is a simple, parameterless read-only tool with annotations covering its safety, the description is complete enough. It explains what it returns (list of preset groups) and the auth need (none), which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description explains the purpose clearly, and with no parameters, no further parameter details are needed.

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 lists preset groups for catalog categorization, with a specific resource ('presets/groups') and verb ('список'). It is distinguishable from siblings like 'list_presets' and 'search_presets' by the word 'группы' and the explicit resource path.

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 for listing preset groups but does not contrast with alternative tools like 'list_presets' or 'search_presets'. Given the sibling list, an agent might confuse it with those; explicit guidance on when to use this vs them is missing.

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