duo_list_user_groups

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'List' and gives no information about pagination behavior, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what a group object contains.

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 one short sentence with no filler words; the core action and scope are front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema.

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 simple read operation with fully documented parameters this is minimally viable, but the absence of an output schema, annotations, and any behavioral notes leaves clear gaps. An agent would not know the response shape or paging behavior beyond the bare limit/offset parameters.

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%; the schema already documents userId, limit, and offset adequately for invocation. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond mapping 'a user' to userId, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ('List the groups a user belongs to'), and the possessive 'a user' scopes it to a single user's memberships, distinguishing it from siblings like duo_list_groups and duo_list_group_users. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over related list tools such as duo_list_groups, duo_get_group, or other user-centric listers. The only implied context is that a userId is involved; no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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