get_access_groups

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds no further behavioral context such as pagination or default limits, but no contradiction exists and no destructive behavior is implied.

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 only three words and contains no filler or repetition, putting the core operation up front. It is concise but somewhat underspecified; it could have added one phrase about scope without losing that benefit.

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 list operation with one optional, well-documented parameter, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. Since no output schema is provided, an explicit note about the response shape would strengthen it, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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%, with limit documented as 'Max results' and a default of 50. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so it reaches only the baseline expected when the schema carries the semantic weight.

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?

"List access groups" states a clear, specific action (list) and resource (access groups), so an agent can tell it returns a collection rather than a single entity. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular sibling get_access_group, but the plural wording makes the intended scope fairly evident.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_access_group, nor any prerequisites or filters. The only usage signal is the verb 'list', which is purpose rather than contextual guidance.

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