list_groups_preferences

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. The verb 'Get' implies idempotence, but no additional context is given.

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 phrase, which is overly sparse for a list tool. It sacrifices informative content for brevity, resulting in under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is still insufficient. It does not explain the scope of preferences returned, whether pagination is supported, or any constraints. A more complete description would enhance usability.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'accept-language' with 0% documentation coverage. The description does not mention this parameter or explain its effect, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use 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 'Get Group Preferences' indicates a read operation but is vague about what 'Group Preferences' entails. It's not a tautology but lacks specificity to distinguish it from other 'list_groups_*' tools beyond the endpoint name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'list_groups_self', 'list_groups_households', or 'update_groups_preferences'. The description does not mention context or alternatives.

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