list_groups

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

The description is rich in behavioral caveats: default thinning of email-containing fields, children always empty, dashboard_id omitted, and max_group_level returned. However, it directly contradicts the openWorldHint annotation by claiming the endpoint 'always returns all records' (常に全件を返します), while openWorldHint signals that the result set may not be complete.

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 organized with purposeful sections: purpose, precondition, permission, default field thinning, and pagination. Every sentence adds operational value and the structured bullets make the behavior 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key output transformations, permission requirements, paging behavior, and hierarchy limitations, so an agent can understand what it will receive. It loses some completeness because the exhaustiveness claim conflicts with openWorldHint, but the rest of the call context is well covered.

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 coverage is complete, and the description adds meaningful parameter context: include_members and include_destinations control whether full email-containing fields are returned, and tenant_id is sourced from list_tenants. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 verb ('一覧を取得') and resource ('テナントに紐づく現場/グループ'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It is distinct from sibling list tools by specifying 'グループ' as the domain object and referring to list_tenants for the id.

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 practical usage context: tenant_id comes from list_tenants, no special permission is required, and the endpoint has no pagination. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings such as list_group_dashboards, but the stated context is clear enough for correct selection.

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