list_user_groups

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the input constraint ('Exact username (email)') but fails to explain what happens if the user doesn't exist, whether permissions are required, or if the output is paginated. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, one for the parameter. Front-loaded with clear action. Every word earns its place.

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 required parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It could be improved by briefly mentioning what the response contains (e.g., list of group names) or error handling, but it covers the essential purpose.

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%. The description adds 'Exact username (email)' which clarifies the format requirement. However, it does not explain that the username is a user's email, nor does it describe any other parameter nuances. Adds minimal value beyond 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 clearly states 'List groups a user belongs to' which is a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_users_by_group' (which lists users for a group) and other user info tools.

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 versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that for listing all groups or group memberships, one might use different tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are noted.

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