get_node_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the basic function without detailing return format (e.g., list of group names?), failure modes (e.g., node not found), or scope (e.g., does it include groups inherited from parent nodes?). This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the action, making it easy to scan.

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 low complexity (one required parameter) and absence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks clarity on the output format (list of strings? group objects?) and potential errors. This gap could hinder an agent from correctly using the tool's result.

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 the 'path' parameter already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get all groups a node belongs to' uses a clear verb ('get') and specific resource ('node groups') with a qualifier ('belongs to'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_scene_groups' (scene-level) and 'set_node_groups' (write operation), making the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find_nodes_in_group' or 'set_node_groups'). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which the tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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