cigchat_team_agent_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the authentication requirement ('Manage Team' scope) and the GET method, which is valuable context. However, it omits details about pagination defaults, sorting, or error behaviors, making it only moderately transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource, followed by the endpoint and scope requirement. There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-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 that it's a simple list operation with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It includes the endpoint and auth context, and the schema covers parameter details. It could mention response shape, but the 'list' verb and sibling tools provide enough context for most agents.

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 input schema provides descriptive text for all three parameters (name, page, limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already includes, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get list of Agent Groups' with the endpoint, making the action and resource explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cigchat_team_create_agent_group or cigchat_team_update_agent_group by focusing on the list/retrieve operation.

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 (listing agent groups) and explicitly notes the required 'Manage Team' scope, which is a crucial prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but for a simple list operation the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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