get_all_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' weakly signals a read operation, but the description does not mention authentication requirements, read-only guarantees, pagination, or scope limits. This is thin coverage for a list-all tool.

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 sentence with no filler, and the action and resource are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, even though it omits some supporting context.

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 output schema may cover the return shape, but the required zoid parameter is undocumented, there is no usage context vs siblings, and no annotations compensate. For a tool with one required parameter and a broad 'all groups' scope, the description is too minimal for an agent to call it with full confidence.

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 only parameter, zoid, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what zoid is or what format it should take. The phrase 'in organization' hints that zoid may be an organization identifier, but this is not explicit enough for reliable invocation.

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 ('Get'), a concrete resource ('all groups'), and a scope ('in organization'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like get_all_users and get_all_domains, and from get_group_details for individual 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 use when the caller needs all groups in the organization, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent could infer the basic scenario, but nothing helps it decide between this and related group tools.

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