list_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool lists and does not mention side effects, whether it is read-only, any permissions required, or performance implications. While a list operation is likely non-destructive, the lack of transparency beyond the action is a gap.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the simple 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 existence of an output schema (which defines the return structure), the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently explains the tool's scope: listing all group tracks with children and state. This is complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and select it appropriately among siblings like 'list_tracks' or 'list_scenes'.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description implicitly adds meaning by stating 'all group tracks', indicating no filtering or arguments needed. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to compensate, but it still provides context that the list is comprehensive within the session.

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 it lists all group tracks in the session, including children and state. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('group tracks'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_group' (which gets a single group) and 'get_group_children' (which gets children of a specific group).

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?

While the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, the purpose is self-evident: use it when you need an overview of all group tracks. The context is implied by the name and description, and the lack of parameters suggests it is designed for a full listing. However, explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons with similar list tools would improve clarity.

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