get_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action itself. It does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found), return format, or any side effects. The description adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

This is a minimal get tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description is sufficient to understand the core operation, but it omits any detail about the return value or behavior on missing IDs. The overall complexity is low, so the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 defines 'id' as a required integer, but the description does not provide additional meaning beyond 'by ID'. Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying the parameter's purpose or constraints, but it does not.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' with a clear resource 'group' and identifies the selection criteria 'by ID'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_groups', which retrieves multiple groups, by implying a single-entity lookup.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular resource and 'by ID' phrasing. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_groups, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. However, the simple get-by-ID pattern makes the primary use case reasonably evident.

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