access_management.get_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the description correctly adds value beyond them: it discloses server-side filtering, one row per group, raw API objects with key fields, and the meaning of an empty list. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs beyond the safety hints.

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 focused and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose: scope, filtering behavior, output shape, and empty-list semantics. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name is present.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and supported by read/write annotations, the description covers the return type, key returned fields, filtering behavior, and edge-case meaning of an empty result. Nothing needed for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 100% for the single optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying the server-side filter behavior and tying the parameter to the return shape ('one row per group'), going slightly beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 identifies the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('groups defined on the Sisense server'), and the input-dependent scope ('one named group, or all of them'). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling group-related tools like use or role tools by specifying exactly what kind of group data it returns.

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 gives clear usage context: provide `name` for a server-side filtered lookup, omit it to fetch every group. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the boundary between 'one group' and 'all groups' is unambiguous.

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