dt3_list_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and destructive=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds behavioral clarity by explaining that the tool includes empty groups and unindexed records, and that pagination is handled via next_offset. This is exactly the type of context that goes beyond basic 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 exactly two sentences and every part contributes value: the action, the inclusions, and the pagination hint. There is no redundancy or fluff, and it is well-structured with the main purpose first.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for the tool's core behavior — listing direct children. Since an output schema is present, return values do not need to be fully described. The mention of next_offset hints at pagination, which is important. It is slightly lacking in that it does not describe what a 'group' is, but given the tool name and sibling context, this is acceptable.

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 only 33% — only 'uuid' has a description, while 'limit' and 'offset' lack any explanatory text. The tool description does not compensate for this by clarifying the meaning or behavior of limit and offset. With low schema coverage and no additional parameter details, the semantics are significantly under-specified.

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 ('Browse direct children') and the specific resource, making the tool's purpose obvious. It adds useful detail about including empty groups and unindexed records, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dt3_search or dt3_get_record. Given the name and context, the purpose is sufficiently clear without ambiguity.

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 a concrete usage instruction: 'Follow next_offset to continue,' which helps with pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as dt3_search or dt3_get_record. The absence of when-to-use guidance leaves some room for interpretation.

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