knowbe4_groups_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. However, this is a read/list operation by nature ('List'), which is transparent. The description clearly states what is returned (names, counts, risk scores). It doesn't mention pagination behavior explicitly, though the schema parameters (page, per_page) cover that. For a simple read list operation, this is adequate but not rich—it doesn't disclose limits, ordering, or whether risk scores are current or historical, though 'current' is stated.

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?

One sentence with zero waste—states the action and return contents efficiently. The sentence is front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Slightly notes it could benefit from a caveat about pagination to earn a 5, but for a simple list tool this is appropriately concise.

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 filtered, paginated list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core: what it lists and what each result includes. The pagination parameters are in the schema. Given the tool's low complexity, this is adequately complete. It could mention that 'all' requires pagination or that risk scores accompany each group, but it already states risk scores are included. A 4 is appropriate given low complexity—no output schema exists but the return values are named in the description.

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%, with both parameters (page, per_page) documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with >80% coverage the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't elevate beyond that since it doesn't clarify interaction between pagination and the 'all' claim (e.g., whether 'all' requires iterating pages).

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List all KnowBe4 groups') with a specific scope stated explicitly ('all'). The description also names return fields (names, member counts, risk scores). It differentiates from siblings like knowbe4_groups_get (single group) and knowbe4_groups_members (members of a group), which are clearly distinct operations. The distinction is implicit through the 'all' qualifier rather than explicitly naming alternatives, keeping it at 4.

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 states the tool lists ALL groups with no filtering, which implies when to use it (when you need the full group catalog). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need a single group's detail via knowbe4_groups_get, or members via knowbe4_groups_members). The sibling names provide context but the description itself offers no direct comparison guidance.

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