List field groups

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already signal safe, read-only behavior, so the bar is lower. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether results are paginated, what fields appear in the response, or how entity types map to the enum values. It merely restates the operation without enriching 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, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and memorable.

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 tool with one parameter and read-only annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but incomplete. It does not mention the return format, pagination, or any caveats, and there is no output schema to fill the gap. The missing details are not critical for basic use, but more context would improve completeness.

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 provides the entity_type parameter with an enum but no description (0% coverage). The tool description clarifies that entity_type means the type of entity whose field groups are being listed, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the enum values or what a 'field group' represents, so the compensation is partial.

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 'List custom field groups for an entity type' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('custom field groups') and scope ('for an entity type'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_field_groups_get (which fetches a single group) and kommo_custom_fields_list (which lists fields, not groups).

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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly explain when to prefer it over alternatives like kommo_field_groups_get or kommo_custom_fields_list. It implies usage context ('for an entity type') but provides no exclusions or comparative guidance against siblings.

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