get_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 NO_UNDO behavior, a server-side response cap (apply_response_cap), and version-specific availability of edge groups. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the bare function name.

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 short sentences, immediately stating the main purpose and then adding key caveats. It is well-structured and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains the group types and edge group version, but lacks parameter guidance (ctx, node_path) and does not clarify what the response looks like beyond 'name list'. Because the output schema is absent, this leaves notable gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's expected 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of ctx or node_path. The agent has no information about these parameters beyond their names, making it hard to invoke the tool correctly.

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 returns name lists for four specific group types (point, prim, vertex, edge). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group_members which deal with group membership, and other geometry inspection tools.

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?

Usage is implied from the purpose: use when you need group names. The note about edge groups requiring H21+ provides some context but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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