List Groups Self

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, pagination, or what happens when the user has no group data. This is minimally viable for a simple list operation but leaves gaps.

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 words. It is concise and immediately states the action and subject, though it is arguably too terse to carry all useful context.

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 simple list tool with an output schema, one optional parameter, and no required inputs, the description is close to sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks parameter semantics and any usage guidance relative to sibling tools, so an agent is left to guess some details.

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 defines one optional parameter, accept-language, with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the parameter's purpose, valid values, or effect, so an agent must infer its meaning from the parameter name alone.

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 ('Returns') and a clear resource ('Group Data for the Current User'), so an agent can tell this is about the current user's group information. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'Current User' scope helps distinguish it from tools like list_groups_households or list_groups_members.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are stated. The only contextual hint is 'Current User,' but there is no mention of when another group-related listing tool would be more appropriate.

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