my-groups

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

The description mentions 'when configured', hinting at conditional behavior, but does not specify what happens if not configured (empty result, error) or any authentication requirements. With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Single sentence with 12 words, no redundancy, front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a parameterless tool, the description is adequate but lacks output format details and error handling. Given no output schema, more context about the return value (e.g., list of strings, empty array) would improve completeness.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema covers all. The description adds context about the data source ('verified ID-token groups claim'), which is relevant but not parameter-related. Baseline of 4 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 it shows group names from the verified ID-token groups claim, indicating a specific data source. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool 'list-groups', which might imply broader group listing.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-groups' or 'whoami'. There is no context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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