getUserGroupUsers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context by specifying the required scope ('users:read'), marking it as '[READ-ONLY]' (indicating non-destructive behavior), and mentioning the corresponding API endpoint. However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, pagination, or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, specifying the API endpoint, and noting the required scope and read-only nature. There is no wasted information, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, API correspondence, scope, and read-only behavior, but lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure) or potential errors, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'userGroupId' fully documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensation.

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 the verb ('Gets') and resource ('users in a specific user group'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'getUser' (which retrieves a single user) and 'listUsers' (which lists all users without group filtering), providing specific differentiation.

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 includes a required scope ('users:read') and implies usage when needing users within a group, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listUsers' or 'getUserGroup'. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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