get_group

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 only states the basic action ('Get details') without covering critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' entail (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence and parameter details following. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal clarity.

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 complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits like idempotency. This inadequacy makes it insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains 'group_id: The ID of the group,' adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, this is minimal information (just one parameter), and it doesn't elaborate on format or constraints, so it meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 as 'Get details for a specific group,' which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('group'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_groups' or 'get_member_results,' which limits its score to 4 instead of 5.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'get_group' over 'list_groups' or other sibling tools. This absence of usage instructions results in a low score.

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