list_group_memberships

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or behavior for empty results. With annotations present, the description should at least note that results may be large or require pagination.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness (e.g., mentioning the output type or pagination).

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 tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), but the description does not explain return values, result format, or error conditions. Given the lack of output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns. Annotations help but do not substitute for missing output documentation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the role of 'constituent_id' via 'for a specific constituent', but does not explain its format, constraints, or that it is required. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 'List group memberships for a specific constituent' clearly states the action (list), resource (group memberships), and scope (specific constituent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_group_membership' (single membership) and 'list_memberships' (likely all memberships without filtering).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_group_membership, list_memberships). The description does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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