list_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Qiita Team only' which is useful context about access requirements, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (list format, pagination behavior, or data structure). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes important qualification. Every word earns its place, making this an excellent example of efficient documentation.

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 that this is a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, the format of the response, or how pagination works. The 'Qiita Team only' note is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information needed for effective tool use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('page' and 'per_page') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'Qiita Team only' which adds important context about the required environment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_group' or 'list_group_members', which would have earned a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'list_groups' versus 'get_group' (for retrieving a single group) or 'list_group_members' (for listing members within groups). The 'Qiita Team only' note provides some context but doesn't address tool selection.

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