List user groups (ICP-level)

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

The description discloses that the tool paginates ('Page through'), returns only active groups, and that each entry contains assigned roles and a sample of member users. This adds behavior beyond the function name. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, pagination mechanics, or any rate limits, which are unaddressed. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but still has gaps.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. It avoids redundancy and every sentence adds information: the pagination behavior and the content of each entry.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies the scope (active, ICP-level), the pagination style, and what fields are returned (roles, sample members). The output schema covers return structure, so no need for added detail. However, it does not clarify how this tool relates to other user-group list tools (e.g., list_em_user_groups), which could cause selection ambiguity.

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 two parameters (limit, after_cursor) with 0% description coverage. The description only implies pagination but does not explain the meaning or usage of 'limit' or 'after_cursor.' It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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: 'Page through every active user group at the ICP level.' It specifies the resource (user groups), scope (active, ICP-level), and action (page through). It also differentiates from siblings like list_archived_user_groups (active vs archived) and get_user_group (paginated list vs single group) by emphasizing 'every active' and 'ICP-level.'

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that list_archived_user_groups should be used for archived groups or that get_user_group retrieves a specific group. The only implicit hint is the word 'active,' but no direct comparison or alternative is named.

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