inforcer_groups_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description affirms read-only behavior. It also discloses useful behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the operation is paginated, and tenant identifiers are resolved to the numeric Client Tenant ID before the request. No contradictions with annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by tenant identifier handling and read-only status. It avoids extraneous content, though the tenant sentence is redundant with the schema, which slightly limits efficiency.

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 description covers what the tool lists, pagination, and tenant resolution. There is no output schema, but 'group summaries' indicates the return nature. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior. Missing only explicit guidance on when to prefer this over groups_get or when to use the continuation_token.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the tenant parameter explanation verbatim but adds no new semantics for search or continuation_token; however, the schema descriptions for those are sufficient, so the baseline score 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 begins with a specific verb and object: 'List Entra ID group summaries for a tenant (paginated).' It clearly identifies the resource, scope, and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inforcer_groups_get, which would retrieve a single group rather than summaries of all 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?

The description conveys clear context for when this tool is appropriate: listing group summaries for a tenant, with pagination. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools such as inforcer_groups_get for detailed group information, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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