List Groups

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds useful context about the return format options (markdown/json) and error handling ('Error: ...'), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'openWorldHint' means in this context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Error) and front-loads the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a list operation with multiple parameters, though some parameter details could be trimmed since they're fully covered in the schema.

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 read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the return format options and error handling, though without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the structure of returned group objects beyond the listed fields.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description repeats some parameter information (like search/filter purposes) but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 in Planning Center Groups', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'pco_get_group' (singular retrieval) and 'pco_list_group_members' (different resource).

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 clear context for usage through the parameter explanations (searching, filtering, pagination, output format), which implicitly guides when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'pco_get_group' or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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