count_user_groups

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

No annotations are present, and the description merely states it returns a count. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether it counts direct or transitive groups, or what happens if the user has no groups. Minimal behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous information, fulfilling its purpose efficiently.

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 simple count operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks nuance. It does not clarify whether the count includes nested groups or how the 'search' parameter influences the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description does not add further meaning or clarify how 'search' affects the count. Baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('number of groups a user belongs to'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'count_groups' (count all groups) and 'list_user_groups' (list instead of count).

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. It does not mention that it counts rather than lists, nor does it explain the optional 'search' parameter's role in filtering results.

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