List Keka Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope and return shape but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination iteration, rate limits, or auth requirements. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and the description is compact. However, the Args section duplicates the parameter details already present in the schema, so it is not perfectly efficient, though it remains well-structured.

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 simple read-only list tool with three optional parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, pagination semantics, and return fields (IDs, names, types), which is especially valuable given the absence of an output schema.

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%, with each parameter already having a clear description, default, and constraints. The description repeats this information without adding any new meaning, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'groups' with the clarification '(teams/divisions)'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools for departments, job titles, pay groups, and other HR entities.

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 makes the use case clear: retrieving all groups. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling list tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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