get_project_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical adds semantic clarification. However, it does not disclose behavior around invalid project IDs, empty results, response format, or permissions, leaving some burden unmet.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, resource, and scope efficiently, and 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned (task groups/folders) and the scope (project_id). Minor omissions like response shape or error behavior are acceptable given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 100% and project_id is already described as 'Project id.' with an exclusive minimum of 0. The description adds only the contextual tie that groups are 'configured inside a project,' which is mildly helpful but not significantly beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('List') and resource ('task groups (folders) configured inside a project'). The parenthetical clarification and 'inside a project' scoping distinguish it from siblings like get_project or get_member_groups without requiring schema inspection.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need the task groups/folders for a specific project, identified by project_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., get_tasks for tasks within groups), so guidance is adequate but not robust.

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