find_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 describes a read-only search operation with substring matching, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or side effects. The existence of an output schema covers return format.

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?

Description is structured into three paragraphs: purpose, usage example, and parameter list. Information is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-organized.

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's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context with an example, parameter defaults, and links to a related sibling tool. No gaps identified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'query' is a substring match defaulting to 'users', and 'limit' is the max number of groups defaulting to 20. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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?

Description clearly states 'Find Jira groups by name' and specifies the use case of discovering the license group name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_users' by explaining the tool is for finding groups when you don't know which group holds all users.

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 explicit context for when to use this tool: 'when you don't know which group holds all users' and suggests passing results to 'get_all_users'. It gives usage examples but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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