list_departments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists returned fields and mentions filtering, but does not disclose if there are side effects, pagination, or rate limits. The operation is likely read-only, which is implied but not explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and essential details (fields, Id usage, filter examples) are presented efficiently.

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 tool has only one optional parameter, no output schema, and is a simple list operation, the description is complete. It lists all returned fields and notes the Id's utility for updates, which suffices for correct 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 description adds value by providing specific filter examples (e.g., 'Name eq Sales') and explaining the filter is OData $filter, enriching the schema's minimal description. Schema coverage is 100% but the description enhances 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 clearly states it returns all 3CX departments (called 'Groups' in the API), which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_department and update_department by focusing on listing, and clarifies naming differences.

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 gives usage context: the Id is needed for update_department, and provides filter examples like 'Name eq Sales'. It implies this tool is for retrieving department info. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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