List archived user groups (Enterprise Manager level)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the context that these groups are 'soft-deleted,' which is a useful distinction from active groups. However, it does not disclose the list behavior (e.g., read-only nature), pagination via limit/after_cursor, or any other operational traits. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about side effects, authorization, or return details.

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 extremely brief ('Soft-deleted EM-level user groups'), which is concise but under-specified. It is not a complete sentence and lacks a verb, making it more of a label than a functional description. While there is no waste, the brevity results in missing critical information, so it fails the test of every sentence earning 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?

This is a simple list tool with no annotations and an output schema (content not shown). However, the description is insufficient given the rich set of sibling tools. It does not explain how this tool differs from list_archived_user_groups, list_em_user_groups, or list_user_groups, beyond the label 'EM-level.' It also does not mention pagination behavior or the meaning of 'archived' beyond soft-deleted. For an agent to select and invoke it correctly, more context is needed.

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%, and the description contains no information about the 'limit' and 'after_cursor' parameters. The names hint at pagination, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The agent is left to guess how these parameters affect the results, with no guidance on defaults, format, or relationship.

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 'Soft-deleted EM-level user groups' is a noun phrase, not a verb phrase. It clarifies that 'archived' means 'soft-deleted' and specifies the Enterprise Manager scope, which helps distinguish from sibling tools like list_archived_user_groups. However, it does not explicitly state the action of listing, relying on the title and tool name for that. It is not a tautology but lacks a clear imperative.

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. Given the existence of similar siblings such as list_archived_user_groups, list_em_user_groups, and list_user_groups, the description does not explain why an agent should choose this specific tool or what differentiates it beyond the title. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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