list_all_authenticated_users_group_memberships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, but there's no information about permissions required, rate limits, output format, pagination, or what constitutes 'Authenticated Users' in this context. The description provides only the most basic functional statement without behavioral context.

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 - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses minimal syntax. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Authenticated Users' means in this security/AD context, provides no parameter guidance, and gives no indication of output format or behavioral characteristics. The context demands more explanation than provided.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its single 'domain' parameter, and the tool description provides absolutely no information about parameters. The description doesn't mention the required 'domain' parameter at all, leaving the agent with no guidance about what this parameter means or how to use it.

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 'List all "Authenticated Users" group membership(s)' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('"Authenticated Users" group membership(s)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_domain_users_group_memberships' or 'list_all_enabled_azure_users_group_memberships' - it's unclear what distinguishes 'Authenticated Users' from other user types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar-sounding sibling tools (e.g., 'list_all_domain_users_group_memberships', 'list_all_enabled_azure_users_group_memberships'), there's no indication of what 'Authenticated Users' means or when this specific tool is appropriate versus other group membership listing tools.

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