get_custom_field_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing purpose and does not mention read-only guarantees, pagination, ordering, response format, or potential side effects.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource without unnecessary details.

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 relatively simple and the schema supplies parameter constraints, so this is minimally viable. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves out return shape and behavioral caveats, and it does not differentiate from sibling get_custom_fields.

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 50%: client_slug is documented, but entity_type is not. The description does not add meaning for either parameter beyond the generic phrase 'de uma entidade', so the agent must infer that entity_type selects the entity kind.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a specific resource ('grupos de campos'), clarifying that these are tabs/sections of an entity. This clearly distinguishes the list operation from sibling tools like get_custom_field_group_by_id.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_custom_field_group_by_id or create_custom_field_group. The entity scope is implied but no exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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