list_permission_groups

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that by only listing groups with no side effects mentioned. The description adds context about the target types but does not discuss return format or edge cases; however, the read-only nature is clear.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two short sentences. It front-loads the core action and then gives essential parameter context without any redundant or verbose wording.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for calling the tool: it states the purpose, the required target_type values, and how to obtain workspace_id. However, it does not explicitly define target_id, which is a required parameter. The output schema is present, so return values are not needed in the description. Overall, the description is mostly complete but has a minor gap regarding target_id.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains workspace_id (source of IDs) and target_type (allowed values), but does not explicitly define target_id. It is implied that target_id is the identifier of the target of the given type, but this is not stated directly, leaving one of three parameters under-specified.

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 action ('List all permission groups') and the target ('for a target'), which is a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies the two possible target types, making the purpose unmistakable even among many sibling tools.

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 some parameter guidance (how to get workspace_id, allowed values for target_type) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like get_permission_group or other permission-related tools. The distinction is implicit through the 'list all' phrasing, but not explicitly stated.

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