sc_portfolio_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the tool returns performance attribution and an ungrouped list, but does not state whether it is read-only (implied by 'Get'), whether it requires any authentication scopes, or what happens if parameters are omitted. Adequate but not thorough.

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, information-dense sentence that conveys the key purpose and output features without any filler. Every phrase adds value.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (get operation, 2 optional params, output schema exists). The description adequately covers what is returned (custom groups with performance, ungrouped list), though parameter details are missing. Given the presence of an output schema that likely details the return structure, this is sufficient.

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%, and the description does not explain what 'group_id' or 'portfolio_id' mean, their valid formats, or their effect on the response. Baseline 3 is given due to 0% coverage; the description could have compensated with parameter details but did not.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves Scalable Capital portfolio groups, including custom groupings with since-buy performance attribution and an ungrouped holdings list. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sc_holdings (which likely just lists holdings without grouping) and the mutating sc_portfolio_group_* tools.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like sc_holdings for raw holdings, sc_overview for portfolio summary, or sc_portfolio_group_create for modifying groups. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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