Get group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns a wrapper containing a Group model, and it raises MissingParameterError when group_id is absent and ParameterError for invalid parameters. However, it says nothing about authentication needs, pagination, or why 46 parameters exist for a read operation.

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 short and front-loads its purpose, and the Returns/Raises sections are useful. The 'Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request' line is boilerplate that adds little and masks the real parameter surface.

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 tool with 46 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It explains the return wrapper and error behavior, but leaves an agent unable to determine which of the many parameters are relevant to a get operation or how to identify a group by path versus ID.

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% across 46 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters and largely fails. It does add one important clarification—that group_id is effectively required despite the schema marking it nullable—but the remaining 45 parameters (path, name, visibility, and many group-setting fields) are entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific group.' This is clear enough to distinguish it from listing tools like gitlab_get_groups, though it does not explicitly differentiate among the many other group-scoped getters such as gitlab_get_group_projects or gitlab_get_group_members.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context (e.g., when to use group_id vs path, or when to prefer gitlab_get_groups). The only hint is the example mentioning group_id.

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