lokalise_list_usergroups

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It clearly states it's a read operation (lists), describes parameters, and outlines return content. Does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a list tool this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose+params, use cases, return info. Front-loaded and efficient. Minor improvement could include more structured formatting.

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 no output schema or annotations, description covers purpose, parameters, return shape, and usage. Lacks error handling or pagination depth, but sufficient for a simple list 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 baseline is 3. Description repeats schema info (required teamId, optional limit/page) but adds no new semantic detail beyond defaults. Does not explain parameter relationships or formats.

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?

Describes listing all user groups with pagination, clearly stating verb and resource. Lacks explicit differentiation from sibling list tools like lokalise_list_contributors, but the resource (user groups) is specific.

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?

Mentions use cases (audit, check group structure, prepare management) but does not provide when-not or alternatives. Adequate for a straightforward list tool, but could be more explicit.

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