List idea groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no statement about what a 'group' contains, and no indication of what happens when organizationId is omitted. It essentially restates the read semantics the annotations already encode.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though it errs toward under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It still leaves the optionality of organizationId and the shape/pagination of results unaddressed, which matters given the 0% schema coverage.

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 0% for the single organizationId parameter, so the description must compensate. 'In an organization' loosely implies the parameter, but it does not say whether the id is required, what format it takes, or what the default behavior is when it is omitted (the schema marks it optional with 0 required parameters).

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (idea groups/boards) and scopes it to an organization, with a useful clarification that 'idea groups' means 'boards'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent buffer_list_ideas or buffer_list_organizations, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus buffer_list_ideas, buffer_list_organizations, or the config tools. The phrase 'in an organization' hints at context but provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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