list_activity_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, permissions, side effects). It only states the basic operation, failing to mention if it is safe, requires authentication, or has any limits.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Minor improvement could add context, but it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately conveys the core functionality. The existence of an output schema compensates for any missing return value details, making it sufficiently complete.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% by default. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since no parameters exist.

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 action 'list' and the resource 'activity groups' with a qualifier 'configured on the remote', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_activities' or 'list_available_entities', but the name itself provides some distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'list_activities', 'get_activity'). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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