crm_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 some behavioral aspects such as not outputting raw JSON and handling empty results, but it omits important traits like side effects (read-only nature), permissions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a potentially read-only operation.

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 concise and well-organized, with a brief introductory sentence followed by clear presentation instructions. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and maintains focus. The length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity, though the bullet points add a bit of extra detail that could be merged, but it remains efficiently structured.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the return format and possible edge cases. It mentions 'token-friendly table' and instructs how to present results, but lacks specifics on the actual data structure (e.g., columns of the table) and error handling. The description is not fully self-contained for a user unfamiliar with the tool.

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 schema details parameters (limit and status) with types and constraints, but the description adds meaning only for the status parameter by explaining it as a filter with allowed values. The limit parameter is not elaborated, leaving its purpose implicit. Thus, the description adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'List CRM lead groups'. It also mentions the token-friendly table aspect, which hints at output formatting but does not obscure the primary purpose. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 some usage context by mentioning the filtering options (status) and presentation instructions. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like crm_get_group, nor does it clarify prerequisites or typical scenarios. The guidance is partial but not fully comprehensive.

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