list_custom_privileged_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('List'), with no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a complete failure to disclose behavioral traits.

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 - just three words. While this avoids unnecessary verbosity, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence structure is clear but lacks the front-loaded information that would help an agent quickly understand the tool's purpose and usage context.

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 tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and operates in a complex security/domain context with many similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide the necessary context about what 'custom privileged groups' are, how they differ from other groups, what the domain parameter means, or what the output will contain. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the single required parameter 'domain' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides zero information about this parameter - what format it expects, what values are valid, or what 'domain' refers to in this context. With one undocumented parameter and no compensation from the description, this represents a critical gap in parameter understanding.

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 'List custom privileged group(s)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides a verb ('List') and resource ('custom privileged group(s)'), but lacks specificity about what 'custom privileged' means or how this differs from other group listing tools. Compared to siblings like 'list_all_groups' or 'list_privileged_users_without_protected_users', it doesn't clearly distinguish its unique scope or purpose.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools that list groups, users, or privileged entities, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what alternatives might be better suited for different scenarios. The agent receives zero usage context.

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