list_iam_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. It discloses the required authorization scope (auth behavior), the scope of listing ('visible groups'), and the response structure ('results array with uuid, groupName, type'). It implicitly indicates a read-only operation by the verb 'list', which is adequate but not explicit.

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 composed of three concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose and scope, parameter guidance, and response format. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 has 100% schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, auth requirements, parameter usage, and response structure. However, it omits potential error conditions, pagination behavior, or edge cases, leaving minor gaps for a list operation. Overall, it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description restates the parameter meanings ('level-type is account or environment; level-id is the corresponding UUID') but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline expectation but does not significantly 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 action ('List'), the resource ('groups'), and the scope ('at an organisational level' with 'IAM v1'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_iam_users' by specifying 'groups' and the required scope. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context by stating the required scope ('iam:groups:read on an account-scoped platform token') and the organisational level context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, lacking explicit exclusion or alternative tool references.

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