list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns member counts and descriptions, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, access scoping, or potential errors. The read-only nature is implied by 'List,' but no deeper behavioral details are provided.

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: 'List groups at a school with member counts and descriptions.' Every word earns its place, and it immediately conveys the primary action and scope. No filler or redundancy.

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, one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides a good overview: it lists groups, scopes by school, and indicates the return fields (member counts, descriptions). It lacks details like pagination or error handling, but these are not critical for a basic list operation. The low complexity and clear parameter make the description fairly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'at a school' clarifies that school_id identifies the school whose groups are listed, adding meaning beyond the bare schema type. For a single self-explanatory parameter with clear contextual mapping, this is adequate compensation.

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'), the resource ('groups'), and the scope ('at a school'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_schools (different resource) and get_group_feed (retrieves a feed, not a list). The inclusion of 'with member counts and descriptions' adds specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, what to use for group feeds, or any prerequisites. The only implied context is that a school_id is needed, but there is no explicit usage direction.

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