projects_groups_list

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

Description notes that only 'active' groups are returned and results are ordered by order number. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries full burden; it lacks disclosure on read-only nature, side effects, or authorization needs.

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 sentences, each adding value: first defines action and resource, second provides ordering detail. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it specifies scope (project), filter (active), and ordering. Minor omission: no hint about the structure of returned groups, but acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% for the single parameter 'id', which is described as 'Project ID'. Description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get all active groups under a specific project', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like projects_get (gets project) and projects_list (lists projects) by focusing on 'groups'.

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?

Description implies when to use (when needing groups under a project) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use. No mention of prerequisites or comparisons to other list tools.

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