list_recognition_groups

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description fully carries the burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses pass-through behavior ('name label is returned as-is and nothing is redacted'), the exact response envelope, default draining/paging behavior, the effect of page, and upstream error behavior for invalid values. This goes well beyond a generic list description.

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 long but tightly organized: purpose first, then response shape, then one clearly labeled line per parameter. Every sentence adds operational value, including the anti-error anecdotes about plural guesses and the response-key warning, with no filler.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no enum constraints in the schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: valid type values, sortable fields, paging semantics, defaults, required host format, and a full response-shape warning. Nothing that an agent needs to make a correct call is missing.

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 0%, so every parameter description must come from the tool description, and it does. For all seven parameters it gives meaning, accepted values, defaults, and interactions (e.g., order_direction only works with order_by, page_size is also the drain page size, page disables draining). The warning about singular vs plural type values is especially valuable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List recognition groups (enrolled faces / vehicles) on a Protect console.' It further pins the scope by naming the exact REST path and by contrasting its 'groups' response key with the unrelated offset-proxy tools, so an agent cannot confuse it with list_recognition_detections or count 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 clearly states when to use the tool and gives explicit exclusions: it uses the private /proxy/protect/api/recognition/{type}/groups path, not the Protect Integration API, and warns that plural type values are invalid and cause HTTP 400. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool (e.g., get_recognition_group_counts or list_recognition_detections) for cases where the agent needs counts or detections instead of groups, so it falls just short of full alternative guidance.

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