List 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. It discloses pagination ('Page through') and the presence of specific fields (em_level, roles, member preview), which is useful context. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any edge-case behaviors like whether the list is sorted or if there are permission prerequisites. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable output details. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 details are covered elsewhere. The description provides sufficient context for the tool's scope (active EM-level groups) and key output (em_level and member preview). It lacks explicit alternatives or edge-case handling, but for a straightforward listing tool with an output schema, it is arguably complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% for the two parameters (limit, after_cursor). The description only hints at pagination via 'Page through' but does not explain the semantics of limit or after_cursor, nor does it mention that the parameters are optional with defaults. This undercompensates for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to rely on conventional parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Page through') and resource ('every active EM-level user group'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like list_user_groups and list_archived_user_groups by the 'EM-level' and 'active' qualifiers. It also states key output fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage for retrieving active EM-level user groups, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. While 'active' implies archived groups are excluded, there is no direct guidance on when to use this vs. list_em_archived_user_groups or list_user_groups, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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