get_my_communities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well-established. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return format: an array of community objects with id and name. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second states the return shape. No filler words or redundancy. The description is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, clear read-only semantics, and an output schema present), the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and what scope applies. There are no complex side effects or hidden behaviors that need disclosure.

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's description of the 'fields' parameter is fully descriptive (dot-path field names, omission behavior, available fields). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no extra semantics but also doesn't conflict with 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 the verb ('Get') and the specific resource ('Partiful communities you belong to'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve other entity types (events, contacts, etc.). It explicitly scopes the operation to 'you' (the authenticated user), removing ambiguity.

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 a clear use case: fetching the current user's communities. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., 'use get_communities for all communities'). No explicit comparison or exclusion criteria are provided beyond the natural scope of 'you belong to.'

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