List channel groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return semantics — that the ids returned are usable as customerId elsewhere — which matters because there is no output schema. Pagination or result-size behavior is still undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and earning their place: the first gives the action, the second gives the semantic mapping and the downstream routing. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns, what the identifiers mean, and where to use them next. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is unambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List configured channel groups") and immediately disambiguates a domain term that would otherwise confuse the agent: a group is a customer in PostSider. This distinguishes it from siblings like postsider_list_channels and postsider_list_posts without opening any schema.

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 names the concrete consumers of the returned ids (postsider_get_customer_report and the customer filter of postsider_list_posts), which effectively tells the agent why and when to call this first. It does not state exclusions or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a full 5.

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