Danh sách nhóm Zalo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: results are silently filtered to groups that have the Mona Bear bot installed, meaning the list can be unexpectedly empty. No pagination or ordering behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded clause naming the action and resource, followed by the key constraint — no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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 description supplies the essential scope and the bot-installation constraint that explains why results may be sparse. It stops short of describing the returned configuration fields, which is the only remaining gap.

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 no parameters (empty object schema, 100% trivial coverage), so the baseline of 4 applies and there is nothing further the description could clarify here.

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 ('Liệt kê' = list) and a precise resource ('cấu hình thông báo nhóm Zalo' = Zalo group notification configurations). This clearly separates it from create/update/delete/test/logs siblings, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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 clause 'nhóm phải có bot Gấu Mona' implies a precondition that shapes when results exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like monapay_zalo_group_logs for auditing or monapay_create_zalo_group for adding groups.

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