get_functional_satisfaction_groups

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

The description discloses that results include current groups and ungrouped tests, but no mention of side effects, authentication needs, or constraints. With no annotations, more detail would be expected.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, well-structured with purpose first and definition second. Every word adds value.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. The explanation of satisfaction groups is helpful. However, missing read-only hint and parameter context for a moderate-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain 'model_id' or 'server_version' context.

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 retrieves satisfaction groups for a functional objective and explains the concept. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'set_functional_satisfaction_groups' or other getters.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_functional_objective' or 'get_functional_coverage'. The description implies a read scenario but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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