list_segments

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the operation is a read-only list of all segments, but provides no additional context about response format or potential limitations. The output schema exists, so returning details are covered, but the description itself is minimal.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It immediately conveys the action and the subject.

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 simple list operation with no parameters and an existing output schema, this description is fully sufficient. It states the complete scope ('all contact segments') and leaves nothing ambiguous for the user.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage without needing description-level elaboration. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or extra information.

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 all contact segments' uses a specific verb ('list') and clarifies the exact resource ('contact segments'), making its purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target contacts or emails, as segments are a separate entity.

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 use when a complete list of segments is needed, and there are no competing sibling tools for segments. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative scenarios, which would push it to a 5.

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