list_user_groups

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, but it discloses nothing beyond the basic operation. It does not mention pagination behavior, whether it returns only groups the user belongs to, permissions required, or any side effects. Given that this is a read operation, this gap is notable.

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 at four words, and every word earns its place. There is no verbosity or unnecessary detail. However, it is arguably under-specified, which prevents a perfect score, but for a simple list operation it is appropriately sized.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a paginated list of user groups) and any important behavioral context. It does not, leaving the agent without enough information to fully understand the tool's output or edge cases. The schema covers parameters, but not the overall result shape.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters (q, page, per_page) beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for any missing parameter context, but no compensation is needed given full schema coverage.

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 states the verb 'list' and resource 'user groups' clearly, making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_user_group beyond the plural form, which is already in the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_user_group for a single group or list_memberships for memberships. The description simply states what it does without any context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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