Get Functional Satisfaction Groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only/no side effects, explains the AND/OR group semantics, and states what the return includes (numbered groups plus unplaced tests). This is valuable behavioral context beyond a bare 'get'.

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 concise and well-structured: front-loaded purpose, then semantics, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds unique value with no repetition or fluff.

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?

There is an output schema, so return details are covered elsewhere. The description sufficiently covers the tool's role, semantics, read-only nature, and relationship to siblings. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions or prerequisites, but not critical for this simple get operation.

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% (server_version lacks a description). The description reinforces the meaning of functional_objective_id by explaining what a satisfaction group is, but doesn't add new details about server_version or model_id beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('satisfaction-group structure for a functional objective'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as the functional analog of get_control_assumption_groups / get_mitigation_groups and by implying the read counterpart to set_functional_satisfaction_groups.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use before set_functional_satisfaction_groups to see the current structure, or to trace why an objective is / isn't satisfied.' It also names the sibling alternatives, making the selection decision clear.

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