list_group_systems

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

The description discloses that it returns a list of system_id and system_name, indicating a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling (e.g., if the group does not exist), or whether the list is exhaustive. No annotations 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 very concise, front-loading the purpose and immediately covering inputs and outputs. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, list operation), the description covers the essential elements. However, it could mention that the group must exist or provide examples, and it does not explain the output schema beyond field names. Sibling tools add context but are not referenced.

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 description mentions the parameter 'group_name' but adds no semantic details beyond its name. The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate with format or constraints. It does not specify whether it expects a display name or an ID.

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 it lists systems in one group, specifies the input parameter, and describes the output. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_systems (all systems) and other specific queries.

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 implies usage for listing systems in a single group, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., use list_systems for cross-group listings). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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