list_mcp_user_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the MCP privilege requirement and implies a read-only operation by using 'List.' It also tells the caller what to expect via the return fields. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' but that is strongly implied for a list operation.

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 that conveys the action, resource, output fields, and prerequisite. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (zero parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, what fields are returned, and the required privilege. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool successfully and interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to document. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 tool lists end-user groups and explicitly names the fields returned (id, name, users_count). It also scopes the purpose to groups 'available to grant AI Hub MCP server access,' which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like assign_mcp_user_groups.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use this tool to see groups that can be granted AI Hub MCP server access. It also notes the prerequisite of requiring the MCP privilege. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like assign_mcp_user_groups, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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