list_access_groups

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

The description explains pagination behavior (returns one page by default, auto-paginate with 'all: true'), which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint). It does not cover error cases or permissions, but for a read-only list tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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: two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second adding a key behavioral note. No extraneous words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 schema richness (100% parameter coverage), annotations (read-only, safe), and lack of output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains pagination, which is essential for understanding the tool's behavior. It could mention return format, but for a list tool the return is generally list of access groups, which is intuitive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with detailed explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'select' describes FIQL syntax). The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Retrieve), the resource (access groups), and the scope (for a specific organization unit). It also highlights the critical pagination behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_access_group' which fetches a single group.

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 implicitly indicates use for listing access groups by org unit, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., 'get_access_group' for single items) or mention when not to use it (e.g., if the org unit is large and auto-pagination is costly). No 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.

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