tc_list_groups

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds the return shape and a note on group purpose, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, or permission requirements. Given strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. The sentence about folder permissions is extra context but not entirely unnecessary. It remains concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in depth. However, it lacks any note on error handling, required permissions, or behavior for invalid project IDs. It is sufficient for a basic list operation but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description merely repeats 'project_id: Project ID' without adding format, source, or validation details. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, providing only the parameter name and type.

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 tool's function as 'List the user groups of a project,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like tc_list_project_members or tc_list_group_users. The added context about groups being used for folder permissions further clarifies the purpose.

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 gives some context about why groups are used but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tc_list_group_users or tc_list_project_roles. There is no mention of when not to use it, leaving usage implied rather than explicit.

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