cm_list_classic_email_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only adds the resource name. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as default scope (e.g., whether it lists groups for all clients or only the authenticated one), pagination, or sorting. The optional clientID parameter suggests filtering, but no explanation of behavior without it is given. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which saves space but omits important details like parameter roles, usage context, and output expectations. While front-loaded, it does not fully earn its brevity given the gaps in completeness.

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 tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no further explanation, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's role. It does not explain what 'classic transactional email groups' are, how they relate to other transactional email concepts, or what the list output contains. More context is needed for reliable tool selection.

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 coverage is 100% with the single parameter clientID already described in the input schema as 'Restrict to a specific client (OAuth/account auth).' The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List classic transactional email groups' clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'classic transactional email groups', making the primary action and object understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from many sibling list tools (e.g., cm_list_transactional_messages, cm_list_smart_emails), leaving ambiguity about what 'classic' means. The purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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 versus alternatives like cm_list_transactional_messages or cm_get_transactional_message. It fails to explain the concept of 'classic transactional email groups' or when to prefer this list over other list tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use hints are present.

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