Get Groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior (retrieve all groups) and return format, which is sufficient for a simple read-only operation. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' nor mention edge cases like archived groups, but the verb 'Retrieve' implies safety and the return details add context.

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 bit verbose with 5 sentences, including an illustrative example and an extra note about using GroupId. However, it is still fairly concise and well-structured, with purpose, usage, and return info front-loaded. The last two sentences could be trimmed, but they add useful context without excessive bloat.

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 simplicity of the tool (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It states what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to use the result. Minor gaps like whether archived groups are included or ordering, but these are not critical for a basic list tool.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain parameters. No additional parameter information is possible or necessary.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all contact groups') with explicit scope ('in this LACRM account'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_group (singular vs plural) by emphasizing 'all' and also mentions return fields (IDs, names, descriptions), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides a specific use case: 'Use this tool to discover available groups before adding contacts to groups.' This clearly indicates when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use get_group for a specific group, or get_groups_for_contact for groups of a contact). Hence, it lacks direct alternative comparison.

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