post_get_post_select_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (write/read-only), or any constraints. For a read-only tool, it is insufficiently transparent.

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 that gets straight to the point. It is concise, but could be very slightly expanded to include return format or behavior without being verbose. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and low inherent complexity, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain return format, pagination, or what 'can post' exactly means (e.g., based on permissions, group type). It meets the minimum but leaves questions.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none. Baseline is 3, but the tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to compensate; it is not lacking. Score 4 reflects adequate handling of absent parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the list of groups that the current user can post to.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('groups'), and the qualifier 'that the current user can post to' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'group_get_detail' or 'group_get_my_joined'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. Among many sibling tools related to groups and posts, there is no mention of when this tool should be selected over others, nor any exclusion criteria.

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