workiva_list_workspace_groups

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List groups' with no mention of pagination, permissions, ordering, or response structure. The output schema exists but does not cover behavioral details like rate limits or data completeness.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the parameter list. It is not bloated and is easy to parse. However, the structure is minimal and could be improved with a more detailed explanation, but for the simplicity of the tool, it is acceptable.

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?

Given the single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks important context. It does not clarify what 'groups' refers to, whether results are paginated, or how the response is structured. With many sibling tools, this absence of context could confuse an agent selecting the correct tool.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description's 'Args' section merely repeats the parameter name and title ('workspace_id: Workspace ID') without adding additional meaning, examples, or constraints. This provides zero added value over the schema.

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 action ('List groups') and the resource scope ('in a workspace'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from general list tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_workspaces or list_workspace_memberships.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely a statement of functionality with no contextual hints, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large set of sibling list tools, more usage guidance would be valuable.

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