find_groups

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are candidates, not identity; sensitive/restricted groups are excluded; results are ordered by normalized name then id; and `truncated` reports more. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adding essential caveats. Each sentence provides distinct value: the core function, the candidate/ambiguity warning, and the sensitive-group exclusion plus ordering/pagination. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (search with filters), an output schema exists, and annotations cover read-only behavior, the description covers key operational aspects: candidate semantics, sensitive-group exclusion, ordering, and pagination. The only gap is the lack of explicit mention of the `limit` parameter, but the `truncated` hint covers pagination behavior. Overall it is nearly complete for an agent to call this 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `name` (normalized name contains) and `kind` (optionally of one kind) but does not explicitly explain the `limit` parameter. The mention of `truncated` reports more hints at pagination but does not describe the limit's role. Thus it partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (groups) with clear filter criteria (normalized name contains `name`, optionally of one `kind`). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides clear context: results are candidates, not identity, and advises asking the user when multiple match. It also notes that sensitive and restricted groups are never returned, implying when not to use this tool for those. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give 'when-not' conditions beyond these implicit exclusions, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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