list_dynamic_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with cloud resources.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details like permissions or pagination. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'compartment_id' with its purpose ('OCID of the compartment to list dynamic groups from'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's 0% coverage. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, making the parameter's role clear, though it doesn't cover format details like OCID structure.

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 action ('List all dynamic groups') and the resource ('in a compartment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_dynamic_group' (singular) or other list_* tools, which would require mentioning it retrieves multiple groups versus a single one.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_dynamic_group' for retrieving a single group or other list_* tools for different resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on naming alone.

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