list_groups

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, the description only provides a scope filter ('non-system OMV groups') and does not describe return format, side effects, or any other behavioral traits. It is entirely missing.

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 short but fails to be a complete sentence, under-specifying the tool's function. It is not conciseness but under-specification; similar to the 'Process' example, it earns a 2.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (zero params), the description is incomplete as it does not explain what 'non-system OMV groups' means, what output the agent should expect, or any operational context. With no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more; instead, it provides almost nothing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but no parameters exist to clarify. It cannot detract beyond the baseline for zero-param tools.

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 'Non-system OMV groups' is a noun phrase without a verb; it does not explicitly state that the tool lists groups. It adds a scope qualifier but relies on the tool name to imply the action. This is closer to a tautology (restating the name) than a clear purpose statement.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_users or list_shared_folders, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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