get_group_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get list') but does not mention pagination, ordering, field details, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple list tool, this is minimal but not completely absent; however, the lack of any extra behavioral context makes it a 2.

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, concise sentence: 'Get list of all joined groups.' Every word is necessary and directly communicates the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the returned list contains (e.g., group IDs, names, objects), which an agent might need to know to use the result. Since there are no annotations either, the description is adequate but not fully complete for a tool that returns a list.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the rubric, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none to describe, so it fully meets the requirement without needing to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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 clear verb-resource combination: 'Get list of all joined groups.' It implies a read operation returning a collection of groups. It is distinct from siblings like get_group_info (which targets a single group) or get_group_member_list (which lists members of a specific group), so the purpose is unambiguous even though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state that it should be used for enumerating all groups, nor does it mention that get_group_info or get_group_info_ex are for individual group details. The usage context is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit direction, so the score is low.

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