get_user_groups_that_user_is_member

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds the HTTP method and emphasizes 'READ-ONLY', but does not detail potential behaviors like pagination, error handling, or response structure beyond 'returns a list'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very concise: three lines with a clear label, HTTP method, and purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with emoji and method for quick scanning.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects) and the annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It states it returns a list, but could hint at response structure or pagination. Minor gap but acceptable for a simple read tool.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id' ('User Id or email (encoded string)'). Description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('user groups that a user is member of'), and specifies it returns a list of all user groups for the given user. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_user_groups' (which likely returns all groups) and other per-user getters.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'get_user_segments' or 'get_user_roles'. The context is implied by the tool name and description, but lacks 'when not to use' or references to alternative tools.

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