list_cluster_groups

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral facts worth having: the result is complete ('all') and it is bounded by a single snapshot rather than spanning the workspace. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, permissions, or whether the listing is expensive on large snapshots, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint is stated rather than buried. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, so it loses a point only on density of information per sentence.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required, no output schema, no nesting), and the description conveys the core contract. However, the one behavior that materially changes the response, whether member star systems are included via include_members, goes unmentioned, and there is no note on result size or pagination.

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 coverage is 100%, with both cluster_snapshot_id and include_members documented in the schema, including include_members' default of true. The description never mentions include_members or what toggling it does to the payload, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus a specific resource (archetype cluster groups) and constrains scope to a single frozen snapshot. The plural 'list ... groups' is distinguishable from the singular sibling get_cluster_group, though the description does not name any sibling explicitly.

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: the phrase 'belonging to a specific frozen snapshot' signals that a snapshot ID must already exist and that this is the enumeration step after a snapshot is created or fetched. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_cluster_group, no stated exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer a report-oriented sibling such as list_cluster_reports.

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