gitlab_list_groups

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 but offers minimal information. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what data is returned (e.g., group IDs, names, permissions). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

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 extremely concise ('List GitLab groups') and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose in three words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation that could involve behavioral nuances (e.g., pagination, scope), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, or operational constraints, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'owned' limits to user-owned groups, 'search' filters by name). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 'List GitLab groups' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('GitLab groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_group' (singular) or 'gitlab_list_projects', which would require more specificity to earn a 5.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_group' for retrieving a specific group or 'gitlab_list_projects' for listing projects within groups, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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