List Code Search Groups

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

No annotations provided. The description indicates a read operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention side effects, pagination, or authentication requirements. However, the context (listing groups) implies safe behavior, and the usage guidance adds transparency.

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?

Four sentences well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains concept, third and fourth give actionable guidance. No redundant text, every sentence adds value.

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 the simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and integration with siblings. It implies the response includes name and sys_id fields. Could be slightly more explicit about response structure, but sufficient for the 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (instance, limit). The description does not add extra parameter-level details but provides valuable context on how the output fields (name, sys_id) are used in other 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 clearly states the tool lists available code search groups and explains their purpose (defining tables/fields in code search). It distinguishes from siblings like code_search and add_code_search_table by explaining how the output is used.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool (before code_search or add_code_search_table) and how to utilize the results: 'Use the group `name` as the `search_group` parameter in `code_search`. Use the group `sys_id` when adding tables via `add_code_search_table`.'

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