entra_id_list_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action and API. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and API. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (list operation with 1 undocumented parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and return values, making it insufficient for reliable agent use despite its conciseness.

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 0%, and the single parameter 'kwargs' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'kwargs' should contain (e.g., query parameters, filters) or its format, leaving the parameter semantics unclear.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('groups in Entra ID'), and specifies the API used ('via Microsoft Graph API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'entra_id_get_group' (singular retrieval) and 'entra_id_list_users' (different resource type). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate scope from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 like 'entra_id_list_users' or other list tools in the sibling set. It lacks context about prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or performance considerations, offering minimal usage direction.

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