infomaniak_list_kchat_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds scoping context but does not describe pagination, output format, or any edge cases. Given the annotations, this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a practical use case without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered, and annotations handle safety. However, the scope parameter's enum values are not fully explained (e.g., 'team_by_channels' is ambiguous). The description is adequate for a simple list tool but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the scope values (team, channel, user) but fails to explain the 'all' and 'team_by_channels' enum values or how the IDs relate to each scope. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 optional parameters.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'kChat groups', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_kchat_channels (which lists channels) and list_kchat_roles. The scope (team, channel, or user) further clarifies the purpose.

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?

It explicitly mentions a use case: 'useful for auditing permission-linked group sync.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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