Get Contacts in Group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the count_only behavior and the mutual exclusivity of group_id/group_name, but it doesn't mention pagination details for the default case or describe the return structure. This is a moderate level of 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 three sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the parameter selection rule, and a useful tip about count_only. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 rich schema descriptions and the simple nature of a retrieval tool, the description provides enough context for correct usage. It covers the key behavioral nuance (count_only) and the parameter choice. Some might expect details on response format, but the schema and tool name largely cover that.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that group_id and group_name are mutually exclusive and by highlighting count_only for accurate counts, which goes beyond the schema 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 function: 'Retrieve all contacts that belong to a specific group.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_contact_to_group or get_groups_for_contact.

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 context for using the tool, instructing to use either group_id or group_name (not both). It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling names and the parameter guidance.

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