List environment groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that it runs 'pac admin list-groups' against the active pac auth profile, which tells the agent the operation is tenant-scoped and auth-dependent. It stops short of saying anything about return contents, pagination, or the read-only nature of the call.

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 compact sentences with the resource definition front-loaded and the implementation detail second. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only list command with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the basics but leaves the agent guessing about what the listing returns (names, IDs, rule associations) and how to interpret results. It is adequate but not complete.

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 all four parameters (cwd, profile, background, timeoutSeconds) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implicitly referencing the active auth profile; baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (environment groups in the tenant) and clarifies what they are ('the grouping used for managed-environment rules'), which is more than a bare restatement of the title. The listing verb is implied rather than stated, and it does not distinguish itself from the related sibling cs_admin_add_environment_to_group, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no reference to an alternative such as cs_admin_list_environments or the group-modification sibling. The mention of the pac auth profile hints at an auth requirement but is not framed as usage guidance.

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