List Contact Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that the tool works in 'LOCAL mode only' and filters by account, which are behavioral traits not captured in structured metadata.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every part is informative: what it lists, from where, and the mode restriction.

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 the simple one-parameter schema, read-only annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects for an agent to select and use the tool. The only minor gap is not elaborating on what 'LOCAL mode' entails, but that is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing accountId as 'Optional account ID to filter groups by (from list-contact-accounts)'. The description's phrase 'from all accounts or a specific account' aligns with the parameter but does not add technical details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource 'contact groups' with scope ('from all accounts or a specific account'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list-contacts and list-contact-accounts by targeting contact groups, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (to retrieve contact groups) and mentions 'LOCAL mode only', which is a usage restriction. The schema references list-contact-accounts as a source for accountId, providing some cross-tool guidance. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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