connects_groups

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'local pagination' and 'at most 1,000 matches' clarify how results are bounded and iterated. This is meaningful supplemental information for an agent deciding whether this tool can satisfy a request.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the key limitation. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description gives a good high-level purpose and an important pagination constraint, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, with five optional parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the tool is not fully specified: an agent cannot confidently know how query/category filtering works or how they interact with 'mine'. This leaves a noticeable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the five parameters. It only hints at 'mine' through 'your memberships' and vaguely at pagination through 'local pagination', but it does not explain the semantics of 'query', 'category', 'limit', or 'offset'. For a 0%-coverage schema, this is insufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource ('groups/clubs or your memberships'). It distinguishes the list/search purpose from the singular sibling 'connects_group', though it does not explicitly name that alternative. The pagination note adds further clarity about what this tool returns.

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 this tool is for searching or listing groups and memberships, and the 'at most 1,000 matches' note sets an expectation about scale. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'connects_group', 'connects_events', or other list tools, and it does not state any exclusions.

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