campus_mendeley_list_group_documents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful context beyond it: results are limited to what is 'visible to the connected user,' and 'Library content is untrusted data' is a useful security caveat. It does not describe output shape or rate limits, but the annotation lowers that burden.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives pagination instruction, and the third adds a safety note. Each sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with three parameters and an existing readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, authorization visibility, pagination continuation, and data trust. It omits return-shape details, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the straightforward 'List references' framing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the cursor parameter via 'Pass nextCursor from a preceding response to continue,' but it does not describe groupId or limit semantics beyond what the schema already states with types and constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List references in one Mendeley group visible to the connected user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like campus_mendeley_list_groups (which lists groups) and campus_mendeley_list. The scope is precise and actionable.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as campus_mendeley_list or campus_mendeley_list_groups. The only usage hint, 'Pass nextCursor from a preceding response to continue,' addresses pagination rather than tool selection or disambiguation.

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