get_metabase_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the return type ('Dict[str, Any]: Group metadata including id, name, etc.'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no groups exist. The output schema exists, but the description doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond the return format hint.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return. Both sentences earn their place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first. It could be slightly more efficient by combining the two sentences, but it's not wasteful.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, simple read operation) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context for a tool with no annotations: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or how it differs from similar 'get' tools. The output schema helps, but the description should provide more operational context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed by not mentioning any, which aligns perfectly with the empty input 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's purpose: 'Get a list of groups (roles) in Metabase.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('groups/roles'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_metabase_users' or 'get_metabase_cards' that also retrieve lists of different resources.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from other 'get' tools in the sibling list like 'get_metabase_users' or 'get_metabase_dashboards'.

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