get_person_groups

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only mentions 'Read-only' but fails to disclose error handling (e.g., invalid personId), pagination, or whether results are always the full set of active groups. This is insufficient for safe selection.

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 front-loads the core action and constraint. It wastes no words, though it could be restructured to separate constraints and behaviors.

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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: no information on return format, error cases, or pagination behavior. The tool is underspecified for reliable autonomous invocation.

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 description adds meaning to personId by re-emphasizing it is not an alias ID, which complements the schema's 'The Rock PersonId'. However, it does not reference the top parameter at all, missing a chance to explain its purpose (limit results). With 50% schema coverage, this partial compensation is mediocre.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'active groups a person belongs to', and specifies key input constraint 'by PersonId (not alias id)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_people or list_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 implies usage for retrieving groups by PersonId and notes it is read-only, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_group_members or list_groups. No exclusion conditions or context are provided.

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