list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation and adds conceptual context ('collapsible collections of workers and chains'), but it doesn't elaborate on return format, pagination, or any edge cases. For a simple list, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two crisp sentences: the first states the action, the second clarifies the domain concept. No filler, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 tool is a zero-parameter read-only list and there is no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does and what a 'group' is. 'List all' clearly implies the return value. Nothing significant is missing.

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 and the schema is empty, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any missing schema information.

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 'List all worker groups' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_workers and list_chains by clarifying what a group is. This is a textbook example of clear purpose.

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 context for when to use this tool is clear: to retrieve all worker groups. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names provide natural differentiation (e.g., list_workers for workers, create_group/delete_group for management). No ambiguity for a zero-parameter read-only operation.

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