get-project-member-group-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers well. It discloses pagination behavior (default page size 20, max 100, page parameter usage), URL pattern recognition for extracting projectId, and response format details (compact response with id and code only). No contradictions exist since annotations are absent.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, URL pattern, pagination, note, examples, returns, usage). While comprehensive, some sections like the detailed examples and returns explanation could be slightly condensed. Every sentence adds value, but it's moderately verbose rather than maximally concise.

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 read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral details (pagination, URL parsing, response format), parameter guidance, and examples. The agent has all necessary information to use this tool effectively.

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%, providing solid baseline documentation for all three parameters. The description adds some value with URL pattern recognition guidance for extracting projectId and pagination context, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the verb 'Get list' and resource 'member groups in a project', with additional context about what member groups are ('collections of members that can be assigned to tasks as a group'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-project-member-list' by focusing specifically on groups rather than individual members.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this tool to find member groups for assigning tasks to groups of members.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-project-member-list' for individual members or other sibling tools for different resources.

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