usergroups_me

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations — the response is CSV formatted — which matters for how the result must be parsed. Beyond that it discloses nothing about scope, permissions, or ordering.

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?

A single fragment with zero filler, front-loading the resource type and the self-scope qualifier. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 the description need not describe the return value beyond flagging the CSV format, and there are no parameters to explain. The only mild gap is absence of any routing hint against usergroups_list, but the scope qualifier largely covers that.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description's 'as CSV' note is the only invocation-relevant detail and it is about output, not inputs.

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?

Names a specific resource (user groups) and scopes it to those the caller belongs to, which distinguishes it from the sibling usergroups_list. The verb is implicit (a retrieval) and the phrasing is a sentence fragment, but an agent can tell what it returns.

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 phrase 'you belong to' implies the selection condition (self-scoped) versus usergroups_list, but no alternative is named, no when-to-use or when-not-to-use is stated, and no prerequisites are given. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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