list_user_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all', which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal and leaves the agent without adequate expectations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail.

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 extreme simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully complete. There is no additional context that would meaningfully improve the agent's ability to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuous). Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4, and the description logically has nothing to add about parameters. This score reflects the appropriate baseline.

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 'List all user groups' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('user groups'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_users. It also specifies the scope as 'all', making the intention unambiguous.

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: use this tool when you need to retrieve all user groups. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, which is acceptable given the extremely simple nature of the tool but still leaves some ambiguity.

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