contact_group_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it simply says 'Contact groups' without indicating read-only operation, return format, pagination, or any side effects. It adds no behavioral information beyond the terse label.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to convey any actionable information, making the phrase low-value despite its brevity.

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?

Although the output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It lacks any indication of returned data, typical usage, or relationship to siblings, leaving the agent without sufficient context to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (the single 'fields' parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already documents what fields are accepted and possible values.

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 'Группы контактов' ('Contact groups') is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name without specifying the action (listing). It does not clearly state that the tool returns a list of contact groups, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like contact_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about typical use cases, relationship to contact_list, or scenarios where group listing is appropriate.

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