listUserGroups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the HTTP method (GET), API endpoint, authentication requirement ('users:read' scope), and read-only nature ('[READ-ONLY]'). It doesn't describe pagination, sorting, or response format, but covers core operational traits adequately.

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 a single, dense sentence with zero waste: it states the action, resource, API correspondence, auth requirement, and safety note. Every element serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 list operation with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, API mapping, auth, and safety. It lacks details on response format (e.g., array structure) and potential limitations (e.g., pagination), but given the tool's simplicity, these are minor gaps.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on tool behavior. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it avoids unnecessary parameter explanations.

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 ('list of user groups'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getUserGroup' (singular retrieval) and 'listUserUserGroups' (user-group relationships). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'listAppGroups' or 'listStationGroups', which share similar naming patterns.

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 usage context by mentioning the required scope ('users:read'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'getUserGroup' (for single group) or 'listUserUserGroups' (for user-group mappings). No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites beyond authentication are stated.

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