Contact Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare 'List' operation. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also contributes no extra behavioral detail such as pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or return characteristics.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and the clarifying parenthetical earns its place by defining the resource. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 simple list operation with one well-documented optional parameter, a complete output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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%, and the only parameter, 'limit', is fully documented with default, minimum, and maximum values. The description adds no extra parameter context, but the schema already carries the semantic weight, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clearly identified resource ('contact groups'), and the parenthetical ('named groups of contacts used for notifications') disambiguates it from sibling tools like list_contacts and list_hostgroups. It immediately tells an agent what resource is being operated on and why it matters.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_contacts or list_hostgroups. There is no mention of when this tool is preferred, what problem it solves relative to siblings, or any exclusions.

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