missive_list_contact_groups

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, stating 'Read-only.' It adds the GET method and parameter distinctions but no additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or side effects. With annotations already covering safety, the description provides marginal extra transparency.

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 efficient sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides actionable parameter details, making it easy for an agent to parse and use.

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 has 4 parameters, all described in the schema. The description covers the key distinctions and required fields. While pagination (limit, offset) is not mentioned, it is detailed in the schema, so the description is largely complete for a read-only listing tool. A mention of pagination behavior would improve completeness but is not critical.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of 'kind' (labels for unrelated contacts vs. related contacts) and the fallback mechanism for 'contact_book' (MISSIVE_DEFAULT_CONTACT_BOOK), which goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 tool's action ('Lists'), resource ('contact groups or organizations'), and references the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes between two kinds (group vs. organization), which differentiates usage and sets it apart from sibling tools like missive_list_contacts.

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 guidance on when to use each value of 'kind' and notes that 'contact_book' is required (or defaults). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but given the absence of similar sibling tools for contact groups, the context is sufficient.

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