access_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'query accessGroups' and lists variables, which implies read-only behavior but does not disclose return format, pagination semantics, error behavior, or any side effects. The example variables hint at filtering and pagination but do not explain them, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 short but poorly structured. It consists of a fragment 'Access Groups · query accessGroups' followed by a list of variable names and a truncated JSON example. The example is not complete and ends with 'or...', making it look unfinished. While it is not overly verbose, the lack of clean structure and incomplete example reduce its effectiveness.

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 query tool with 6 optional parameters, nested filter objects, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, filter semantics, or how the parameters interact. The provided example is not enough to guide correct usage, especially given the complexity of the filter/notFilter structures.

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 schema describes all parameters with minimal 'GraphQL: ...' text, but the description adds an example showing the structure of filter and notFilter objects with placeholder IDs, which provides some semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, the example is truncated and does not explain the meaning or allowed values for each parameter, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states 'query accessGroups' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings such as access_group, create_access_group, update_access_group, and delete_access_group by indicating this is a query operation for the plural resource. However, it lacks explicit scope like 'list all' or filtering behavior beyond what the example implies, so it's clear but not fully elaborated.

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. It does not mention that this is for listing multiple access groups as opposed to fetching a single one with access_group, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'query' and the plural resource name.

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