rbac_get_user_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a read-only operation ('Retrieve'), lists required licenses, and shows the HTTP endpoint. However, it does not mention error scenarios, pagination, or response format, and the POST method could be surprising for a retrieval operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence followed by license and an illustrative example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter read operation, the description covers purpose, license, and request format. It lacks explicit return-value structure but states the output is user emails, which is sufficient for a simple tool. The absence of annotations and output schema is partially compensated by the clear description.

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% with descriptive field names, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example request body clarifying the nested structure of request_data and group_names, which goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions and aids correct invocation.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Retrieve a list of the current user emails associated with one or more user groups,' clearly identifying the action, resource, and output. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rbac_get_users and rbac_get_roles by focusing on group-based user email retrieval.

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 implies usage when needing user emails for specific groups but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as rbac_get_users or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The license requirement and endpoint are useful context but do not serve as usage exclusions.

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