get_group_permission

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. It states the tool retrieves permission data, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the group or repository doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and concise, with three clear sections: purpose, arguments, and returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by integrating the sections more fluidly, but it's efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling) and doesn't fully explain the return value ('Group's permission level' is vague without examples). For a read operation with simple inputs, it's minimally viable but could be more informative.

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 description lists the parameters ('repo_slug' and 'group_slug') and their roles, but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description adds basic meaning by specifying what each slug represents, but it doesn't explain format (e.g., string patterns), examples, or constraints. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this is adequate but minimal.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a specific group's permission for a repository.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('group's permission'), and target ('repository'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_group_permissions' or 'get_user_permission', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_group_permissions' (for listing all permissions) or 'get_user_permission' (for user-specific permissions), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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