list-groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify whether subgroups are included, whether pagination applies, or what happens if the realm does not exist. The core behavior is disclosed, but edge cases and scope ambiguity remain.

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, succinct sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential information clearly and front-loads the purpose.

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, the description is adequate. However, ambiguity about whether 'all groups' includes subgroups and the lack of response format or error semantics make it only partially complete given the sibling tool context.

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 already documents the realm parameter with a description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that the realm parameter defines the scope, but adds no extra format or syntax details, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 all groups in a realm' uses a specific verb ('list') with a clear resource ('groups') and scope ('in a realm'). It distinguishes from siblings like list-sub-groups and list-group-members by targeting all groups at the realm level.

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?

Usage is implied by the clear purpose: use this when you need to list all groups in a realm. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives, such as list-sub-groups for child groups, so guidance is only implicit.

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