swsd_list_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by stating exactly what the response includes (id, name, description, disabled, member_count), which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions exist between the description and annotations.

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 three clear, concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by returned fields and a use case. Every sentence contributes meaningful value and the structure is easy to parse.

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 listing tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It states the purpose, the returned fields, and the practical context (ticket triage). Pagination behavior is left to the schema parameters, which are fully documented. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (page, query, per_page), including defaults, constraints, and descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 applies as described in the rubric.

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 identifies the tool as listing SWSD groups (assignment teams), with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool by specifying the return fields (id, name, description, disabled, member_count), making it clear this is a reference-data listing tool and not an incident or user tool. The parenthetical '(assignment teams)' adds immediate clarity about what groups are.

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 a concrete use case: 'useful for understanding team structure when triaging tickets.' This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the resource 'groups' is unique among siblings so the guidance is adequate.

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