game_get_nodes_in_group

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

Annotations only include title; no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects, permissions, or limitations. The behavioral traits are minimally communicated.

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?

A single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no unnecessary words. Efficiently structured.

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 tool has one parameter and is straightforward, but the description omits information about the return value (e.g., format, data type). Given no output schema, this is a gap. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'group' is well-documented with a description and examples. The description adds examples but does not significantly augment the schema's information. 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 states the verb 'Get', the resource 'nodes belonging to a specific group', and the context 'in the running game'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like game_find_nodes_by_class (finds by class) and game_manage_group (manages groups).

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 such as game_find_nodes_by_class or game_manage_group. There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual suitability.

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