ghl_get_calendar_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool 'gets' data, but does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, authorization requirements, or what a 'calendar group' is. This is insufficient for a getter without annotations.

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 clause, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler words. Every word adds meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description provides minimal context about the return value or the concept of 'calendar groups'. It is a simple tool, but the lack of any surrounding context (e.g., what location means, how this relates to calendars) leaves gaps for an agent selecting among many sibling tools.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage). Per baseline, with no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 ('Get') and resource ('calendar groups') with scope ('in the location'), clearly conveying the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ghl_get_calendars, though the resource name itself provides some distinction.

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 closely related siblings such as ghl_get_calendars or ghl_get_calendar_events. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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