get_member_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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires no special permissions, or has any other behavioral traits. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and object. There is no filler or redundant information. Every word earns 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide enough context for an agent to understand what the call returns. 'List the member groups' implies a list result but does not describe the structure, fields, or any pagination or error behavior. For a simple list tool this is acceptable but leaves some gaps.

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 arguments, so the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool warrants a baseline score of 4, and there is nothing that would reduce it.

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 lists member groups (teams) for the account. It uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'member groups', and the account scope distinguishes it from project-specific siblings like get_project_groups. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_member or get_members, though the group/team focus is distinct.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for account-level teams or that project-level teams are handled by get_project_groups. An agent has to infer the appropriate usage from the name and sibling list.

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