List environment groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs 'pac admin list-groups' with the active pac auth profile, which is useful but doesn't reveal whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or any side effects. For a listing command, it likely returns data without mutations, but this is not stated. This is a significant gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no filler. It leads with the core purpose, then adds the underlying command and auth detail. Every word earns its place. It's optimally concise for a straightforward listing tool.

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 listing tool, the description covers what it lists and how it runs, but it omits behavioral specifics like output format, pagination, or read-only nature. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent might not know what to expect from the call. It's not a complex tool, so it's minimally complete but lacks the transparency that would make it fully self-contained.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all four parameters (cwd, profile, background, timeoutSeconds) are already documented. The tool description adds no extra parameter information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't introduce any ambiguity.

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 states it lists environment groups in the tenant and specifically ties them to managed-environment rules. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cs_admin_list_environments by focusing on groups, not environments. It also names the underlying command, making the action concrete. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it loses a point.

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 managed-environment rules, which suggests when to call it. But it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say to use cs_admin_list_environments for a plain environment list. This is implied rather than stated, so it's adequate but not strong.

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