list_groups

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the operation returns groups the authenticated user belongs to and that all such groups are included. It does not describe unnecessary behavioral details beyond that, but given the strong annotations and simple read-only nature, this is adequate.

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?

A single sentence with no filler or redundancy. The core action, resource, and scope are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs. There are no missing prerequisites, inputs, or side effects to disclose.

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 an empty schema, so the schema requires no explanation. The description reinforces that the tool takes no input and operates on the authenticated user's own groups. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Splitwise group'), and scopes it to 'every' group the authenticated user belongs to. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group (single group) and create_group (creating groups).

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 when to use the tool: whenever you need the full list of groups for the current user. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_group for a single group' or 'use create_group to add a group.' The usage context is clear but not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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