swsd_list_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral content is the returned field list, which the output schema already carries, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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?

Two tight sentences with the identity of the resource and its return shape front-loaded, followed by the use case. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not restate return values or safety. It covers purpose, scope and use case adequately; the only mild gap is scoping/alternatives against the many sibling list tools.

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 page, query and per_page are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (SWSD groups) and disambiguates the term with '(assignment teams)', which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_roles or list_users. It does not explicitly name a sibling the way the strongest definitions do, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Useful for understanding team structure when triaging tickets' gives a concrete usage context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which alternative sibling tool to prefer, so it lands at clear-context-without-exclusions.

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