alterios_list_user_groups

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

The description labels the operation as 'Read', implying no side effects, but it does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the meaning of 'listandcount'. With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose important safety or performance characteristics.

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 (21 words), which is concise. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, omitting critical details about parameters and usage. The structure is adequate but not optimal for agent decision-making.

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 has five parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema (not detailed), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output structure, pagination behavior, or filter semantics, leaving significant gaps in understanding for the agent.

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?

The input schema includes five parameters (limit, offset, search, profile, project_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names. While names like 'limit' and 'offset' are common, the purpose of 'search', 'profile', and 'project_id' in this context is unclear.

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 'Read Alterios user groups', indicating a read action on a specific resource. However, the phrase 'through the typed security listandcount route' is jargon and may not clarify the tool's purpose for all agents. The tool name itself suggests listing, and the description adds some specificity but does not differentiate from similar siblings like 'alterios_list_groups'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'alterios_list_groups' or 'alterios_list_users'. The description does not indicate any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context without support.

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