list_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name. Given the annotations, the description is adequate but doesn't provide extra value like pagination or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loads the verb and resource. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but it earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any hint about output format or relationship to sibling tools like list_chats. Completeness is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit, include_last_message). The description doesn't mention parameters, but the schema fully documents them. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra meaning.

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 'List group chats only' is specific about the resource (group chats) and action (list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_chats which likely include all chat types. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude other chat types or define what constitutes a group chat.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_chats, get_group_info, or analyze_group_overlaps. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The description provides no context for selection.

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