list_client_groups

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: results are scoped to local groups (local_only), member counts are deterministic, and identities are intentionally excluded. This is meaningful supplemental transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by read-only scope and the key sibling distinction. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but not excessive. Overall every sentence 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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the main operational need: what is returned (groups with counts), the scope (local_only), and the alternative for member identities. No output schema exists, so a bit more detail about the exact return shape would be helpful, but the description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description's Args section only restates the same site and device explanations without adding new meaning, examples, or edge-case guidance. Therefore the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List local client groups and deterministic member counts.' It also distinguishes itself from list_clients_by_organization by clarifying that the latter enumerates actual member identities, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly identifies list_clients_by_organization as the alternative for enumerating members, which gives clear decision guidance for the main ambiguity. It also marks itself as read-only. It doesn't explicitly discuss when to use create/delete/assign_client_group, but those are clearly different operations and the context is sufficient.

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