list_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'hierarchical structure' which hints at the output format, but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when filters return no results. For a list operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the hierarchical output structure, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how multiple filters interact. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects despite the good parameter documentation in the schema.

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 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'filtering' which aligns with the workspaceId, parentId, and search parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('groups'), and specifies 'with hierarchical structure and filtering' which adds useful context about the output format and capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_root_groups', 'get_child_groups', or 'get_group_tree' which also retrieve groups with different scopes.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_root_groups' (for root groups only), 'get_child_groups' (for children of a specific parent), or 'get_group_tree' (for hierarchical tree structure). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

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