Danh sách nhóm Zalo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does communicate that the operation is a non-destructive listing filtered to groups with the Gấu Mona bot — a genuinely useful behavioral fact. However, it does not disclose output shape, empty-result behavior, or what happens when no qualifying groups exist, which matters more given there is no output schema.

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?

Two short clauses with zero waste: the first front-loads the verb and resource, the second appends the constraint. Nothing repeats the title verbatim, and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the essentials: what is listed and the inclusion criterion. Small gaps remain — no statement of the tool's practical purpose (e.g., identifying groups that can receive notifications) or guidance for when no groups have the bot — but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric. The description adds the only relevant context a parameter-less call needs: what the result set contains and under what condition groups are included.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Liệt kê' = list) with a specific resource ('cấu hình thông báo nhóm Zalo' — Zalo group notification configurations), and adds a meaningful scope constraint: groups must have the Gấu Mona bot. This distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools (monapay_create/update/delete_zalo_group) by its read-list nature, though it does not explicitly name them as the HIGH calibration example did.

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 bot precondition ('nhóm phải có bot Gấu Mona') implies when the tool is applicable and suggests the agent may need to verify bot presence first, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative. Among five Zalo group siblings (create/update/delete/test/logs), the agent is left to infer that this is the read-only listing option.

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