get_requester_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions listing and pagination parameters, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it returns all groups across pages or just a single page, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise, with a one-line summary followed by a compact parameter list. Every element adds value without unnecessary filler, and the structure is front-loaded with 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 paginated list tool, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. An output schema is indicated to exist, so return-value documentation is not required from the description. Minor gaps include lack of any mention of sorting, filtering, or edge cases, but these are less critical for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for its parameters (coverage 0%), so the description attempts to compensate by explaining 'page: Page number' and 'per_page: Results per page'. However, these explanations add little beyond the parameter names themselves, which are self-explanatory, and fail to provide context-specific details such as acceptable ranges or behavior when parameters are omitted.

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 'List all requester groups' with a specific verb and resource, and the word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_requester_group_by_id' which retrieves a single group. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and sibling tools.

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