list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'List' signals a read-only operation and 'current action state' tells the agent what additional data is returned. For a zero-parameter, non-destructive tool, this is adequate transparency, though it does not discuss potential staleness or ordering.

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?

One tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and only one qualifying detail ('current action state'). No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-argument list call with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It states exactly what will be returned and implies a non-mutating operation; an agent can invoke it with confidence.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; nothing is missing 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all light groups') and adds the distinguishing detail 'with their current action state.' This separates it from list_lights (individual lights) and get_group (single group) without needing to open the schema.

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?

The phrase 'all light groups' gives clear context that this is the enumeration tool, not a single-group lookup. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_group, so it stops short of a 5, but the scope is clear.

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