iam_groups

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

The description embeds '[READ][risk=low]' tags and explains that groups whose reads fail are placed in groupErrors rather than dropped, and that the envelope reports truncation when the limit is reached. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema, though it does not disclose permission requirements or the exact response envelope structure.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief read-risk tag, a one-line summary, a behavioral note, and a bulleted arg list. Every sentence adds information without padding.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (IAM groups with members and policies), how failures are handled (groupErrors), and how the limit affects truncation. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could be more explicit about the response envelope format.

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 input schema has no descriptions for either parameter, so the description provides the only semantic information. It explains that 'limit' is the maximum number of groups to return and that truncation is reported in the envelope, while 'target' selects a MinIO target from config and can be omitted for the default.

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 identifies the tool as returning IAM groups with their members and attached policies, preceded by a '[READ]' tag indicating it is a read operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like iam_users and iam_policies, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iam_policies or iam_users. It only mentions the target argument for configuration, which is not usage guidance.

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