get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieves') without detailing behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by front-loading key details like scope). There's no wasted verbiage, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context about the return format (e.g., what group information is included), error cases, or how it fits into the broader kintone ecosystem with many sibling tools. For a retrieval tool in a complex server, more completeness is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'codes' parameter fully documented in the schema itself ('取得するグループコードの配列（指定しない場合はすべてのグループを取得）'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 tool's purpose: 'kintoneのグループ情報を取得します' (retrieves kintone group information). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieves/get) and resource 'グループ情報' (group information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_group_users' or 'get_users', which also retrieve user/group-related data, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_group_users' (which retrieves users within groups) or 'get_users' (which retrieves user information), nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for usage. This lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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