list_beta_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that it is a 'Pro feature,' indicating an access/entitlement requirement, but it does not elaborate on return format, potential errors, or other behavioral details. For a simple list operation, this is minimal but present.

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 two short sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and a notable restriction. There is no wasted wording, and it is effectively 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the purpose and a key restriction ('Pro feature'), and the schema supplies the app_id requirement. It is adequately complete, though it could mention expected output or read-only nature.

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 schema description fully covers the single parameter app_id (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 action (list) and the resource (TestFlight beta groups for an app). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like assign_build_to_group or invite_beta_tester, which handle different operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states that it lists beta groups, with no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The 'Pro feature' note is a requirement, not a usage guideline.

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