get-groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral nuance beyond the schema: default fetch-all behavior, empty array semantics, and case-insensitive search. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentences lead with the core action, then detail filtering behavior, then add the practical use-case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple read-only lookup with an output schema present, complete parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety. The description adds the default-retrieval behavior and the notification use-case, making it fully sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description largely restates the groupIds and searchText semantics rather than adding meaningful new meaning, keeping this at the baseline level.

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 verb-resource relationship ('Get groups from a workspace'), then sharpens scope by explaining the default behavior (all workspace groups), the optional groupIds filter, and case-insensitive search by name. This differentiates it from sibling read tools like get-users or get-workspaces.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use signal: 'Use this before passing group IDs to tools that support group notifications.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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