tool-groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effects of each action (list shows groups, activate enables, deactivate disables, reset disables all dynamic, status shows state) and clarifies that core groups are always visible while dynamic groups are on-demand. Missing details like error handling or permission requirements are acceptable for a management tool of this scope.

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 front-loaded with the alias and purpose, then lists actions and groups. It is informative but slightly verbose due to the exhaustive listing of all group names. The '[compact alias of manage_tool_groups]' is redundant, but the overall structure is logical.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's operations and state changes. It explains what 'list' and 'status' show, but does not specify the exact output format or behavior for invalid inputs. Still, it is fairly complete for a management tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the enum values for both 'action' and 'group' but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The grouping of groups into core and dynamic adds some context but does not elevate the score above baseline.

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 tool's purpose: managing tool groups, and lists specific actions (list, activate, deactivate, reset, status). It distinguishes between core and dynamic groups, and there are no sibling tools with overlapping functionality.

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 explicitly outlines when to use each action (e.g., 'activate' to enable a dynamic group) and identifies the groups that can be managed. While it does not state when not to use the tool, the context is clear and no alternatives exist among siblings.

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