get_time_spec_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'returns the details' and wraps NBAPI GetTimeSpecGroup, but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the key is invalid, or the format of the returned details. This is a significant gap for a tool in a system with many similar retrieval tools.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It states the action and the key input immediately, and the NBAPI reference adds context without bloating the text. This is ideal conciseness for a simple retrieval tool.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) the description covers the basic call, but it lacks differentiation from the many similar sibling tools (e.g., get_time_spec_groups, get_time_specs) and does not mention error behavior or the contents of the returned details. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent navigating a large toolset.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the TIMESPECGROUPKEY parameter fully. The description merely restates that it uses the key without adding any new meaning, such as accepted formats or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 it returns the details of a single time spec group for a given key, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_time_spec_groups (plural) or get_time_spec, but the word 'single' and the key parameter imply a distinct retrieval purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the input requirement (TIMESPECGROUPKEY) but does not mention when to choose this over get_time_spec_groups for listing, or how it differs from get_time_spec. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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