Get Groups

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds a specific auth requirement ('Scopes: calendars/groups.readonly'), which is useful beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the operation is scoped to a location and returns all groups, adding behavioral context without contradicting 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 short, but it begins with the redundant phrase 'Get Groups' which merely repeats the tool name and title. The substantive information is front-loaded afterward, and the endpoint/scopes line is useful but could be more tightly integrated without the initial redundancy.

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 required parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the necessary invocation context: resource type, location scope, endpoint, and required auth scope. It does not describe the response shape or pagination, but the low complexity and open-world annotation lessen that 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 coverage is 100%, so the single required parameter locationId is already documented. The description reinforces that the operation is location-scoped but does not add new semantic detail such as accepted formats or additional constraints, so the baseline score applies.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get all calendar groups in a location.' This is more specific than the tool title and distinguishes this endpoint from siblings like calendars_get_calendars or calendars_get_calendar, which operate on calendars rather than calendar groups.

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 implies its use case: retrieve calendar groups for a given location. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or related endpoints. The context is clear but alternatives are not addressed.

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