列工具分组与当前装载（精简）

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the effect of the group parameter (empty gives overview, provided gives tool names) and that it reports loading status. It doesn't contradict annotations, and while it doesn't detail error cases, the added parameter behavior is valuable.

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 concise sentences plus a parameter summary and example, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and the call example is minimal and useful. No fluff 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?

With a single optional parameter, an output schema present, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential usage. It explains the parameter behavior and the relationship to tools_load. It doesn't detail return format, but given the output schema exists, that's acceptable. It could mention edge cases (e.g., invalid group name) but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 schema provides no description for 'group' (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining the exact behavior: empty gives an overview, a group name lists the tools in that group. This is a clear, complete explanation of the parameter's meaning, going well beyond the schema.

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 lists tool groups and whether they are currently loaded, and differentiates itself from the sibling tools_load by explaining the flow (pick a group here, then load it). The verb 'list' and resource 'tool groups' are specific, and it mentions the 'nano minimal profile' as part of the grouping, distinguishing it from a generic listing tool.

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 gives clear context: it tells small-context models to pick a group here and then load with tools_load, and explains the behavior for empty vs. provided group. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like list_tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions. The usage context is clear but not fully comparative.

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