get_group_preferences

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 implies a read-only list operation ('List preferences') but says nothing about authentication/permissions, the scope of the group context, what preferences are returned, or format, so a substantial gap remains for an unannotated tool.

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 useful content is one short line ('List preferences'), which is front-loaded, but the bulk of the description is a long, low-signal keyword dump (preference, preferences, list, get, search, find, browse, fetch, read, mealie). This bloats the definition and dilutes the actionable text.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum hint at what 'preferences' are returned, yet it only repeats retrieval synonyms. Combined with the absence of annotations, the definition is too thin for an agent to confidently predict the result or the call's context.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies: no parameter meaning can be added or omitted when the input schema is an empty object.

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 clear verb (get/list) with a specific resource (group preferences), and the endpoint path [GET /api/groups/preferences] reinforces the intent. However, it gives no differentiation from the very similar sibling get_household_preferences, leaving the agent to infer the distinction between group-level and household-level preferences.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as get_household_preferences or update_group_preferences. The trailing keyword block lists generic synonyms (get, search, find, browse, read) but these are retrieval-synonym spam, not usage guidance.

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