User: List_user_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of whether results are paginated, whether group membership is direct or inherited, or what happens for a user with no groups.

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 sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to earn a 5.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the minimum is met, but with no output schema the description could have said what a returned group looks like or that it returns an empty list for unaffiliated users.

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% with a single well-documented 'userId' parameter ('The Brivo user id.'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('List') and resource ('groups a user belongs to') with a clear directionality (user → groups). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'Group: List_group_users', which is the inverse traversal, so an agent has no textual cue for which direction to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the user must exist), and no mention of the inverse 'List_group_users' tool. The agent must infer applicability purely from the tool name.

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