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. It discloses the derivation logic (from src/ directory layout, configurable via .rosgraph-mcp.toml) and notes the config option. Missing details like return format or side effects, but for a read-only list operation this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second explains derivation/default behavior, third provides usage guidance. No redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important aspects: what groups are, how they are derived, optional configuration, and when to use it. It does not describe return format, but for a list tool the purpose is clear enough.

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 0%, and the description never explicitly explains the workspace_root parameter. It mentions 'this workspace' but does not connect it to the parameter, leaving the agent to infer that workspace_root specifies the workspace. The description adds little beyond the schema's property name and type.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly names the resource ('groups and subgroups') and scope ('in this workspace'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_packages by focusing on group/subgroup structure.

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?

It gives explicit usage timing: 'Call this before using subgroup filters on list_packages/dashboard'. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare against alternatives, so it lacks exclusion criteria.

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