list_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds a small behavioral detail about include_supergroups affecting the returned group types. It does not contradict annotations and provides no misleading information, but also does not disclose return format or pagination behavior.

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 very short and the Args section is succinct. However, the opening phrase 'Groups and supergroups.' largely restates the tool name and adds little value. It is concise but under-specified, lacking important parameter details that could fit without bloat.

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?

With 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and only a partial cross-reference, the description is inadequate for correct invocation without external knowledge. The presence of an output schema and read-only annotations mitigates some risk, but the parameter semantics gaps and absence of usage context make the tool incomplete for an agent.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains include_supergroups and refers to list_channels for five other parameters, but leaves limit, archived, and only_unread completely unexplained. This partial coverage is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters, leaving the agent to guess about important filtering options.

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 resource is clearly identified as 'Groups and supergroups', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_channels and list_pm_users. Although the description lacks an explicit verb, the function name 'list_groups' supplies the action, making the purpose understandable. The phrasing is terse but effective.

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 distinction between basic groups and supergroups via include_supergroups=False, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_channels or other listing tools. The cross-reference to list_channels is indirect and does not clarify selection criteria. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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