List email groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses pagination behavior and the data included (recipients, SMTP server, last-modified), which is useful. Yet it omits potential requirements (e.g., permissions) or any side-effect-free guarantee, though for a list operation this is somewhat implicit.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value: the action, the returned fields, and the business context. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with a paginated list and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It provides enough context about the data and purpose, though it could mention whether special permissions are required or how the results are ordered.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain 'limit' or 'after_cursor' at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the cursor format and default behavior are undocumented, leaving a gap that the description should have filled given zero schema coverage.

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?

Description states the specific action ('Page through every email group') and resource ('email groups in the deployment'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_email_group (single group) and find_email_groups_using_smtp_server (filtered lookup).

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 clear context for when to use this tool—when you need to enumerate all email groups—and mentions their role in detection policies. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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