misp_list_sharing_groups

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It indicates a read operation ('list') but lacks details on permissions, return format, or pagination. For a tool with no parameters, basic transparency 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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be improved with structure (e.g., bullet points) but is appropriately concise.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return values or behavior. It does not. However, for a simple list tool with no parameters, the description is minimally complete.

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?

No parameters defined, so baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds context ('for controlled event distribution') that clarifies the parameter-less nature.

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?

Description states 'List MISP sharing groups for controlled event distribution', which clearly identifies the action and resource. It adds context about the purpose, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'misp_list_tags' or 'misp_list_feeds'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description is purely functional with no context on when listing sharing groups is appropriate.

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