list_all_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'List all group(s)' only states the action without any details on permissions required, rate limits, output format, pagination, or whether it's a read-only or destructive operation. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented for the agent.

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?

While the description is brief with 'List all group(s)', this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It lacks necessary details for a tool with a parameter and no annotations, making it ineffective despite its short length. The structure is minimal but not helpful.

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 complexity implied by sibling tools in a security/AD context, one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role, parameter usage, or behavioral expectations, making it inadequate for agent understanding.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'domain' with 0% description coverage, meaning its purpose is undocumented. The description 'List all group(s)' does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with a parameter and low schema coverage, this is inadequate.

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 group(s)' restates the tool name 'list_all_groups' almost verbatim, making it a tautology. It lacks specificity about what type of groups (e.g., Active Directory groups, Azure groups, or general groups) and provides no distinguishing details from sibling tools like 'list_all_aad_groups_synchronized_with_ad' or 'list_custom_privileged_groups', which offer more context in their names alone.

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 sibling tools that list specific types of groups or related entities (e.g., 'list_all_aad_groups_synchronized_with_ad', 'list_custom_privileged_groups'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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