directory_list_user_groups

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: requires the 'GroupMember.Read.All' permission, returns a specific subset of properties, and clarifies that nested group membership is excluded. This meaningfully enhances the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds utility and return fields, the third covers limitations and permission. Each sentence earns its place, and the important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description appropriately lists the return fields ('group id, name, type and description'). It also covers the input format and the permission required. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple membership list, this is sufficient.

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 already describes the single parameter 'user' as 'User email address or User Principal Name (UPN)' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by saying 'by email or UPN' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 'List' and the resource 'Entra ID groups a user is a direct member of', distinguishing it from sibling tools like directory_list_group_members (which lists members of a group) and directory_search_groups (which searches groups). It also specifies the identifier input (email/UPN).

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 for when to use the tool: 'useful for working out someone's access or which teams they belong to'. It also explicitly states a limitation ('Only direct membership is returned; groups inherited through nested groups do not appear'), which implies when not to use it for transitive membership, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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