list_scim_groups

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable context: the tool is Enterprise-gated and returns 403 on non-Enterprise plans. It also clarifies scope limitations (directory groups only, no mappings/members), which go beyond annotation data. No contradiction exists.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral/entitlement notes. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded. No filler 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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, usage context, scope limitations, and error behavior for a 3-parameter read-only tool, making it fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (page, search, page_size) already having meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden effectively, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search and page through identity-provider groups synchronized to Portkey over SCIM.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it 'reads directory groups only and does not show their workspace mappings or individual members,' which separates it from list_scim_workspace_mappings and related 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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it: 'Use this to resolve a group ID or exact display name before create_scim_workspace_mapping.' It also states what it does not do (show workspace mappings or members), offering clear exclusionary guidance. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for those excluded cases, so it falls just short of full alternative specification.

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