List user groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results include member IDs and are workspace-scoped, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default values, or the exact response structure. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentence that front-loads the key information (resource and one notable attribute). It is efficient and free of fluff, though it is slightly fragmentary and could benefit from a verb.

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?

With no output schema and six optional parameters including pagination controls, the description gives only minimal context about return content ('member ids'). It does not explain that it returns a full list of teams, pagination semantics, or what other fields are present, leaving some gaps for a list operation.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 identifies the resource (teams/user groups in the workspace) and notes they include member IDs, which is specific enough to distinguish from other list tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb (the title supplies 'List') and does not directly state that it returns a list, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 through its resource name and content that this tool lists user groups, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or situations to avoid, such as using workspace_users for user-level data, so guidance is only implied.

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