get_user_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and adds one useful behavioral detail (member counts are returned), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite 'all' in the description, nor about permissions or whether the result set is truncated.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence with no waste. The scope and payload are front-loaded, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented pagination parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the paging contract and read-only safety profile unstated, which is a meaningful gap for an agent calling this tool.

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% with two parameters (page, pagesize) that are completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description's claim of retrieving 'all' groups actively conflicts with the presence of paging parameters, and it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving all User Groups configured in the BI platform, plus the extra detail of member counts. It is distinguishable from the adjacent get_group_users sibling (which lists users within a group), though it never names or contrasts that alternative explicitly.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_group_users or get_user_details. An agent must infer the selection context entirely from the tool name.

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