Check My Group Memberships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: 'including transitive membership' and 'up to 20 supplied group IDs.' However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., list of matching group IDs vs. boolean per ID), error handling for invalid IDs, or authentication expectations. The description gives basic behavioral traits but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences: the core statement and a multilingual repetition. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no unnecessary fluff. The main information is front-loaded: 'Check which of up to 20 supplied group IDs contain the signed-in user, including transitive membership.'

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: the action, the parameter scope, and the transitive membership behavior. It does not explicitly state the return value structure, but the phrase 'Check which... contain' implies the output will be the subset of supplied group IDs where the user is a member. This is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema description for groupIds ('Group IDs to check.') is clear, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds context about checking against the signed-in user and the limit of 20, but these are already present in the schema or are not additional semantics about the parameter's format or usage. Thus, the description provides minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific action: 'Check which of up to 20 supplied group IDs contain the signed-in user, including transitive membership.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like groups_list_members (which lists members of a group) and users_list_memberships (which lists all memberships) by focusing on checking a supplied set of group IDs against the current user.

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 the use case: when you have a set of group IDs and need to check if the signed-in user is a member, especially with transitive membership. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like users_list_memberships or groups_list_members, nor does it state exclusions. Thus, the usage guidance is only implied.

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