accelo_list_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 the Beta status, the domain role of groups, and pagination limits, but says nothing about permissions, auth requirements, or the shape of returned records. 'List' implies a read, but that is inferred rather than 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a useful domain sentence, then a compact parameter list derived from an unstructured schema. Neutral but necessary, with little filler.

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 list tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description supplies purpose, domain context, and all five parameters. Return-record structure is absent, but that is the main remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the filter keys (id, title, staff_id), shows a fields example, explains search scope, notes page is 0-indexed, and caps limit at 100. Only the exact filter value formats remain unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List staff groups') and adds domain meaning ('Groups categorize staff for bulk assignments and access controls'), which clearly separates it from accelo_get_group and accelo_count_groups. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the scope is 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use cue: 'Use filter staff_id to find groups a specific staff member belongs to.' No exclusions or explicit alternatives are stated, but the retrieval intent is clear.

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