List Contact Groups

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

The description only states the action, with no disclosure of behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or return format. With no annotations provided, the description fails to convey any safety or side-effect information.

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 sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, though it may be too sparse for the context.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and the ambiguity around 'contact groups' vs sibling resources, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a contact group is, how it relates to contacts/segments, or what the response contains.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 the action 'List contact groups' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like reach_contacts_list and reach_segments_list, leaving ambiguity about what 'contact groups' means distinctly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationships to reach_contacts_list or reach_segments_list.

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