Get Group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects.' It also clarifies the semantic scope of a system group and its relationship to threat models. While it does not describe error behavior or pagination, the read-only disclosure and scope clarification are meaningful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only disclosure, followed by important scope distinctions and discovery guidance. It is slightly verbose in the middle section, but every sentence carries routing or semantic value. Overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

The description covers scope, side effects, output contents, alternative tools, and ID discovery, and an output schema exists to document return values. The main gap is the unexplained server_version parameter, which prevents full contextual completeness for invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema documents system_id but leaves server_version undescribed, and schema coverage is only 50%. The description adds useful context for system_id by explaining what a system is and how to discover system IDs, but it gives no additional meaning for server_version. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not completely.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a system group by ID, including summaries of its member threat models.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling group tools by stating that single-group fetch is for systems only, not tags. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives: tags have no fetch-by-id endpoint, so enumerating tags should go through list_groups(kind='tag') and list_model_groups. It also explains how to discover system IDs via list_groups(kind='system') and how to add members with add_model_to_group(kind='system', ...). This is exemplary routing guidance.

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