scim_list_groups

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for adding the return shape (displayName, externalId, members, Beyond Identity extensions) and the permission-group limitation, which is real behavioral context not present in the annotations. It omits pagination/response-envelope behavior, which is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first establishes the resource and protocol, the second covers the return payload and the key limitation. Front-loaded with the identity-relevant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields, and annotations cover the read-only nature. For a zero-required-parameter list tool this is largely complete, though it could say more about how count/startIndex interact with the result paging.

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?

All three parameters (count, filter, startIndex) carry full descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage, and the description adds nothing about count semantics, filter grammar, or index behavior. With the schema doing all the work, the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (groups) and scopes it to the SCIM v2.0 protocol, which distinguishes it from the plain list_groups sibling. It also enumerates the returned Group fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, which keeps it below a 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 implies usage (SCIM protocol, read-only listing) and adds a useful boundary note that permission groups cannot be created or modified via SCIM, which hints this listing covers non-permission groups. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_groups or get_groups, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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