list_tool_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content in detail: category, tool count, loaded status, and tool names. Since the tool takes no parameters and is inherently a read/list operation, this level of transparency is appropriate, though it does not mention edge cases or error behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state what the tool does, what it returns, and which sibling to use for the next step. Every sentence earns its place and the action is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential facts: what is listed, what information will be returned, and how to proceed if the goal is to load a group rather than merely list it. Nothing important is missing.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on outputs rather than inputs, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 all available tool groups') and the resource ('tool groups'), and it specifies exactly what information is returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_instances and load_tool_group by naming the resource and the related action.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it lists groups, and if you need to actually load a group, it points to load_tool_group(group). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or exhaustively compare with all siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple listing tool.

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