group_list_live

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cache fallback behavior, which is useful, and implies a live query nature. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what exactly 'participating groups' means, or what the output structure looks like. The disclosed info is partial but not misleading.

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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loaded with the primary action ('List all participating groups') before the secondary detail (cache fallback). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose and a behavioral detail. However, it omits clarification on what 'participating groups' means and the format of the output, and it does not address how this differs from list_groups. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but leaves some ambiguity that could affect correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema information to describe. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all participating groups' with live names (subject, size). It conveys the core action and scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_groups, which also lists groups. The mention of 'live' hints at freshness but doesn't contrast it with the alternative.

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 mentions fallback to cache when offline, which is a behavioral condition but not a usage guideline. It does not state when to prefer this tool over list_groups or other group-related tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent receives no guidance on selecting this tool from among its siblings.

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