Get a person's groups

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those safety traits. It adds the endpoint and 'Body fields: none' but does not describe response shape or access requirements; this is acceptable but not highly additive.

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 compact: purpose, endpoint, body note, and reference, all front-loaded with no filler. Every piece serves either selection or invocation.

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 read-only lookup with one required path parameter, the combination of description, schema, and annotations covers invocation essentials. An output schema is absent, but the endpoint and endpoint name make the returned group-membership list reasonably inferable; a missing explicit return-format note keeps it from a 5.

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?

Beyond the schema's plain personID string, the description supplies the path template /people/{personID}/group-memberships, making the role of the single required parameter concrete. It also states 'Body fields: none,' which prevents an agent from inventing a request body. The query object is already documented in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a person's groups,' and reinforces it with the exact REST path. This distinguishes it from sibling person-related tools like get_a_person_39_s_supervisors and get_a_person_39_s_devices by the resource being fetched.

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 intended use is implied by the phrase 'Get a person's groups' and the path, so an agent can infer when to call it. It does not, however, explain when to prefer it over related group tools such as get_group_members or get_groups, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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