Get groups

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds only 'Body fields: none' and a reference link, which provide minor protocol detail but no new behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result limits, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 four short sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded in the first two words. Endpoint, body expectation, and reference are each compact and useful. This is a model of concise structure.

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 safe, read-only collection GET with strong annotations and a fully documented query parameter, the description is largely sufficient: endpoint and reference are present, and the schema explains query behavior and pagination. However, with no output schema and no explicit statement of response shape or list semantics, an agent must infer what the call returns. This is a small but real gap, so 4 rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single query object documents all accepted parameter names, comma-joining of arrays, and explicit offset/limit pagination. The description adds 'Body fields: none,' which is a useful clarification that no request body is needed, but it does not otherwise explain parameters. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 immediately names the operation ('Get groups') and the exact endpoint (GET /api/xm/1/groups), making clear this is a read-only list operation. The plural 'groups' and endpoint distinguish it from siblings like get_a_group and get_group_members, though it never explicitly states that it returns a list of group objects.

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 given about when to use this tool versus xmatters_get_a_group, xmatters_get_group_members, or other group-related siblings. The only usage signal is the endpoint and the query-parameter schema; there is no stated alternative, prerequisite, or contextual trigger.

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