get_group

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method and route, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the group is not found. The output schema exists but the description itself adds little beyond the API call.

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 compact two-sentence definition that leads with the purpose and then gives parameter placement. There is no redundant or filler content, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 simple GET endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the essential call and parameter placement. However, it omits important context such as whether the body should be used, what specific query parameters are supported, and how errors are surfaced. These gaps are moderate given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent that path_params should hold route IDs and query should hold filtering/pagination/sorting/include values, which is a start. However, it doesn't specify exact key names or formats, leaving the generic additionalProperties schema ambiguous. This is insufficient for a tool with a fully generic schema.

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 states 'Get learner group details' with a specific verb and resource. It also names the underlying HTTP call, making it unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_groups, the singular 'group' vs. plural 'groups' is implicit, and the sibling list_groups serves as an obvious alternative.

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 placement guidance ('Put route IDs in path_params...') but gives no explicit context for when to choose this tool over siblings. It doesn't state prerequisites like requiring a groupId, nor does it mention when NOT to use it (e.g., when listing groups). The parameter-placement hint is useful but the when-to-use guidance is absent.

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