bitrix24_workgroup_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'list', implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination, default filtering, return format, or any side effects. A simple 'list' verb is insufficient for 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is too brief to be informative. Conciseness is good but at the cost of completeness.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return structure, such as fields in each workgroup entry. The tool has one parameter but with an object type, which is covered by the schema. Overall, the description lacks important details for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the filter parameter having a clear example '{PROJECT: "Y"}'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states 'List Bitrix24 workgroups and projects', which matches the tool name. It specifies the resource (workgroups, projects) and the action (list). Among sibling tools, it uniquely focuses on workgroups, so no confusion. However, it could be slightly more explicit about whether it returns both workgroups and projects or filters.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_list, deal_list, or other list tools. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It assumes the agent knows when to use a workgroup listing.

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