contact_getCommonGroups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the empty-array return behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the operation requires any permissions, has side effects, or what happens if contactId is omitted (since schema only lists sessionId as required). For a read operation, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence ('Get the contact's common groups with you.') is redundant, repeating the first sentence with only a minor clarification. It remains compact but could be tighter.

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?

The description covers the primary behavior and the empty-array return case, which is good for a simple getter. However, it does not clarify the inconsistent optionality of contactId (the schema only requires sessionId) or describe the response structure beyond 'array'. Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of a similarly named sibling, more context would be beneficial.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (contactId and sessionId) with 100% coverage, including examples and type information. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('the contact's common groups'), with the [Contact] prefix distinguishing it from the sibling client_getCommonGroups. The phrase 'with you' clarifies the intended scope, and the mention of the empty array return value reinforces the function's purpose.

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 purpose implies when to use this tool (when you need a specific contact's common groups), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from similar tools like client_getCommonGroups. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it stops at implied usage.

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