get_node_groups

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is adequately transparent for a simple getter. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid node paths or return format details.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and implies the return (a list of groups). It is sufficient for basic invocation, though it lacks detail on error behavior and path semantics.

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% and the description does not elaborate on node_path beyond the parameter name. It does not specify path format, whether it is file-system path or scene-tree path, or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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 'List' and a clear resource 'the groups a node belongs to'. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_node_groups (mutates groups) and find_nodes_in_group (finds nodes for a group).

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 instead of alternatives such as find_nodes_in_group or set_node_groups. The context of siblings exists but the description does not mention them or any exclusions.

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