get_group_details

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. 'Get group summary' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the summary returns, whether there are rate limits, or what happens if the group doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just three words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's perfectly efficient in terms of word count and structure. Every word earns its place, making it a model of brevity.

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?

Given the tool's apparent simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is still inadequate. 'Get group summary' doesn't explain what a 'group summary' contains, how it differs from other group-related tools, or what the agent can expect as a result. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output to be complete enough for effective use.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with complete schema coverage is 4, as there's no parameter semantics burden on the description.

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 'Get group summary' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_group_details'. It doesn't specify what constitutes a 'group summary' or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_group_future_events', 'get_group_posts', or 'get_group_id'. The purpose is vague and lacks specificity about what resource or information is actually retrieved.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to groups (get_group_future_events, get_group_posts, get_group_id), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's purpose or when it should be selected over those other group-related tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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