cipp_list_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It only states the basic action without disclosing response format, pagination, permissions, or whether group members are included. For a simple list, this lacks transparency.

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 sentence, concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded with a detail (e.g., group type) without losing conciseness.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify what the returned list contains (e.g., group IDs, names) or any scoping nuances. The agent may need additional knowledge to use it effectively.

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%, and both parameters ('search', 'tenantFilter') are fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'list groups', so it does not improve parameter understanding.

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 'List groups in a tenant' uses a clear verb-resource pair, indicating a read operation scoped to a tenant. It differentiates from sibling tools like cipp_create_group (create) and cipp_list_users (list users), though it does not specify the type of groups (e.g., Microsoft 365, security).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cipp_list_user_groups (groups for a specific user). No explicit 'when-not' or context for selection among sibling list tools.

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