get_group

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing important edge-case behavior: sensitive/restricted groups surface as found:false, and sensitive/restricted memberships are silently omitted without skewing truncated. It also clarifies the epistemic limitation that shared memberships are not proof members actually know each other.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and every additional sentence earning its place by adding behavioral caveats. There is no filler or redundant restating of annotations.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behavioral quirks that affect interpretation, which is the main completeness risk. Small gaps remain around explicit parameter semantics and sibling routing, but the schema and defaults cover most of what an agent needs to invoke it.

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 carries the burden of explaining group_id and limit, but it does not define either parameter. 'Bounded page' hints at limit-controlled pagination, but the description adds little explicit meaning beyond the schema's field names and default.

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 returns one group plus a bounded page of its recorded memberships, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like find_groups or list_group_memberships, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as find_groups, list_group_memberships, or get_person_timeline. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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