get_collector_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond listing, such as pagination behavior, default ordering, or whether it returns all groups or only accessible ones. With annotations covering the core safety traits, a 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't contradict annotations and adds minimal but non-zero context.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation. It could arguably be more informative, but for a straightforward read-only list tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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?

For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring it read-only and idempotent, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't mention what a 'collector group' is in this context, whether the list is paginated by default, or how the filter parameter interacts with name_filter (though the schema does mention that filter overrides name_filter). The lack of an output schema means the agent doesn't know the return shape, but for a list operation this is a minor gap.

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%, so all four parameters (limit, filter, offset, name_filter) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 collector groups' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('collector groups'), which distinguishes it from related tools like get_collector_group (singular) and create_collector_group. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools in the sibling set, so it's clear but not maximally distinctive.

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 implies a read-only listing operation, and the annotations (readOnlyHint=true) reinforce that it's safe to call. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_collector_group or get_collectors, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The usage context is implied by the name and description but not stated.

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