User Groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether the list is paginated, whether it returns all groups or only some, or any other behavioral trait. The description is essentially a label.

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 sentence with no waste, front-loaded. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification; for a tool with four parameters and many siblings, it may be too terse. Still, it is concise and structurally sound.

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 no annotations, an output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description needn't cover return values or parameters. However, it fails to provide any context for tool selection or behavior, which is critical given the dense cluster of sibling user-group tools. It is insufficient.

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 schema documents all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) in detail. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (列出) and resource (用户组). However, it provides no differentiation from sibling tools such as user_group_info, user_group_users, or user_list_ug, which also deal with user groups. An agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to call.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. The description offers no help in selecting this tool over the many other user/group-related siblings.

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