get_my_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying scope (only own memberships) and what data is included ('self-enrollment configuration and dates where published'), and further confirms it avoids fetching other groups' rosters. This matches annotations and adds useful context.

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?

Taut two sentences with zero precision waste. The first sentence is a clear verb+resource statement, and the second adds scope; no redundant phrases or heavy wording.

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 a simple tool (2 params, 1 required) with strong annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough about output (categories, memberships, self-enrollment config, dates) and that it is safe. It could be improved by explicitly stating the default scope of categoryId (if omitted, all categories), but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% for both parameters, and each has a clear description ('Exact Brightspace numeric identifier from another tool'). The tool description does not add extra meaning or constraints beyond this, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a concrete resource ('course group categories and your own verified memberships'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by stating what it does not do ('without fetching other groups' rosters or preparing a group'). This differentiation is strong and actionable.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: this tool is for reading your own memberships, not for preparation/enrollment, and not for fetching rosters. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use prepare_group_enrollment to join'), leaving the selection slightly more indirect than a true 5.

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