get_groups

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implicitly communicates a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects or that the node will not be modified. It also does not disclose return format or error behavior, leaving some details to inference.

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 brief and front-loaded: one purpose sentence followed by a single argument line. It contains no filler or redundant detail, and the structure is clean. However, the argument line adds little value, making it economical rather than information-rich.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description does not specify the return shape (e.g., list of group names, group paths, or objects) or whether group types (point/primitive/vertex) are included. It also omits any details on error handling for invalid node paths. These gaps leave an AI agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter documentation is 'node_path: Node path.' which simply restates the schema's property title and adds no new meaning about path format, expected node type, or absolute vs. relative paths. The tool description mentions 'SOP node' context, but the parameter line itself contributes nothing beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List all geometry groups on a SOP node.' The phrase 'geometry groups' and 'SOP node' clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_group_members, get_geometry_info, or get_points, which have different purposes. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to enumerate geometry groups on a SOP node. However, it provides no explicit when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, such as noting that get_group_members should be used to inspect group contents. The context is minimal but not misleading.

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