Get groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes only the semantic gloss on groups; it says nothing about pagination, return shape, or required org-level permissions. With annotations carrying most of the weight, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single short parenthetical sentence with no filler and the key noun front-loaded. Efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere rather than being praised for it.

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 four-parameter call with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description should at minimum name the required org_id and describe what the returned group list contains. Neither is present, so an agent cannot call it confidently from the description alone.

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% across four parameters, including the required org_id, and the description never mentions any parameter. Saying "org groups" weakly implies org scoping, but it does not confirm that org_id is mandatory or explain the form/params/json_body pass-through parameters.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("List org groups") with a useful gloss defining what a group is ("collections of members for access assignment"). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many closely named siblings such as vaultwarden_get_group_details, vaultwarden_get_groups_details, or vaultwarden_get_group_members.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to pick it over vaultwarden_get_groups_details, vaultwarden_get_group, or vaultwarden_get_group_members. The agent must infer selection from names alone, which is risky given how similar the sibling names are.

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