listUserUserGroups

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 stating the required scope ('Requires `users:read` scope'), marking it as read-only, and mentioning the corresponding API endpoint. This covers key behavioral traits like authentication needs and safety, though it lacks details on rate limits 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 the core purpose stated first, followed by API correspondence, scope requirement, and read-only note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (a read operation with four parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, scope, and behavioral context well, but lacks details on the output format (e.g., structure of the returned array) and error cases, which could enhance completeness for the 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the OData filter syntax in more detail. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Returns an array of user group IDs') and resource ('that the user is currently a member of'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like listUserGroups (which likely lists all user groups) and getUserGroupUsers (which likely lists users in a specific group). The verb 'returns' and the explicit resource scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context by specifying the required scope ('Requires `users:read` scope') and indicating it's read-only, which helps determine when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as listUserGroups for a broader list or getUserGroupUsers for reverse lookup.

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