List User Memberships

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It adds meaningful context: 'directly belongs to' scopes the query to immediate memberships, and 'Omit the user to query the signed-in user' clarifies the optional parameter behavior. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination behavior beyond the schema's 'top' parameter, and any permission requirements.

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 sentences plus a localized hint. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes: first states the core action, second gives usage guidance. The Chinese intent section is an efficient localization addition without bloat.

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 list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the primary function and the key parameter behavior, and the sibling tool context makes the niche clear. However, it could describe the expected return values or clarify what 'directory objects' encompasses.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, as 'Omit the user to query the signed-in user' simply repeats the parameter description. It meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 tool's purpose: listing groups and directory objects a user directly belongs to. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource, and the qualifier 'directly' distinguishes it from transitive or broader membership queries.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use: to list memberships for a user, with the explicit note to omit the user for the signed-in user. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from sibling tools like users_get_profile or groups_check_my_memberships.

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