list_user_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—it merely restates the operation without disclosing pagination, filtering behavior, or other side effects.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 an output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It fails to explain the filter parameters or how this differs from get_user_group, which is a common source of confusion. The existence of an output schema compensates for lack of return-value detail, but parameter semantics remain a gap.

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 0%, and the description provides no details about the device, name_filter, or policy_filter parameters. The description must compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory text, but it does not even mention the parameters, leaving agents without guidance on how to use them.

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 ('lists') and resource ('user groups') with a clear context ('on MikroTik device'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_user_group (which retrieves a single group) and add/update/remove_user_group.

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 as the generic listing operation, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as get_user_group. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, so guidance is only implicit.

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