sysknife_list_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so "Read-only" largely restates structured data. The one genuine addition is the scope limit (local groups only, not directory-backed), but nothing is said about privilege requirements or what the returned records contain.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the read-only safety note first and the scope second. The internal action name `ListGroups` is immediately paraphrased by "list all local groups", which is mildly redundant but costs almost nothing.

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 zero-parameter, closed-world read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what matters: it reads, needs no input, and returns all local groups. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether elevated privileges are required or what fields each group carries.

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?

There are zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description's "no params" simply corroborates the schema; no additional parameter meaning is needed or expected here.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("list all local groups") with an explicit scope qualifier ("local"), which makes it plainly distinguishable from siblings like sysknife_list_users or sysknife_get_sudo_grants by resource. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: "list all local groups" plus "Read-only" tells an agent this is an inspection call with no arguments. There is no statement of when to prefer it over adjacent tools (e.g. group membership vs. sudo grants), no preconditions, and no exclusions.

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