list_available_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that it 'uses the observed learner page' and explicitly states 'no group membership changes or peer roster reads,' which reinforces the read-only nature and clarifies what it does not do beyond the annotations. This adds value without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding a clarifying constraint. Every sentence carries meaning: the first defines the action and scope, the second clarifies the data source and exclusions. There is 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 read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage for parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the resource, what attributes are returned, the source page, and what it does not do. Minor gaps include not specifying pagination or output format, but these are not critical given the simplicity of the tool and the coverage provided by annotations and schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both courseId and categoryId have descriptions ('Exact Brightspace numeric identifier from another tool'). The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, though it mentions output attributes (category, capacity, membership, joinability) which are not directly tied to input parameters. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline 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 verb 'read' and the resource 'native Brightspace groups offered for self-enrollment', with specific attributes (category, capacity, own membership, joinability). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_groups (which reads the user's current groups) and prepare_group_enrollment/confirm_group_enrollment (which modify membership). It is unambiguous and actionable.

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 context on when to use it by explicitly stating it reads available groups for self-enrollment and by excluding operations: 'no group membership changes or peer roster reads.' This tells the agent it is not for enrolling or reading rosters, though it does not name specific alternative tools. The exclusion of membership changes and roster reads helps differentiate from enrollment and roster-related siblings, but explicit alternatives would strengthen the guidance.

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