list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It communicates a read-only listing action with system-wide scope, but it does not mention pagination behavior or what the list contains (e.g., basic group objects vs. detailed metadata). This is adequate but thin.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making the tool's primary purpose immediately clear.

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, but with no output schema and no annotations, an agent would benefit from knowing the response shape or confirming pagination. The current description is enough to understand the basic operation but not enough to fully anticipate the result format or pagination behavior.

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 does not compensate by explaining page or per_page. The parameter names and defaults are mildly self-explanatory, but the phrase 'all groups' could mislead an agent into thinking pagination is irrelevant, when page/per_page clearly suggest a paginated result.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('groups'), and a scope ('all in the system'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_group, which fetches a single group, and list_group_members, which lists members rather than 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_user_groups or list_group_members. There are no explicit exclusions, conditions, or alternative routing, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and generic listing intent.

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