List API groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds scope ('all') and context ('in the Upmind API reference'), indicating it returns a complete catalog of groups, which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds meaning.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional, well-described parameter and strong annotations, the description provides the necessary purpose and scope. Although no output schema exists, the nature of the return (a list of groups) is clear from the description and title.

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 sole parameter includeCount is fully described in the JSON schema with default behavior (default true). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the full burden. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'endpoint groups/categories in the Upmind API reference.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group_endpoints, which focus on endpoints within 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 provides clear context that this lists all groups, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as search_endpoints or get_group_endpoints. The 'all' qualifier implies a top-level overview, but no explicit exclusion or alternative is mentioned.

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