get_groups_round_robin

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the endpoint and the presence of round-robin data but does not explain pagination, response shape, permission requirements, or whether this is read-only beyond the implied GET.

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 short clauses with no filler; the main purpose appears immediately and the endpoint is useful context. Information is compact, though some behavioral details are sacrificed.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so a bare statement that it returns round-robin data is incomplete. An agent is left to guess what the additional data looks like and how list_groups differs beyond naming, especially with a sibling list_groups available.

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 100%, so the schema already documents sort, type, and extraQuery well. The description adds no param-level detail, but it does not need to; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation with a specific verb ('Lists groups') and a distinguishing feature ('includes round-robin data'), reinforced by the endpoint '(GET /groups/roundRobin)'. It is distinct from sibling list_groups by that feature, though it could more explicitly contrast the two.

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 on when to choose this tool over list_groups or other listing tools. The description implies use when round-robin data is needed, but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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