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. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions the output includes summaries of member threat models, and explains the system concept. It does not cover error conditions or edge cases, but the read-only disclosure and scope limitations are transparent. Slight deduction for lacking permission/error details.

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 two paragraphs but every sentence adds value: purpose, read-only note, then detailed usage guidance with alternatives and conceptual explanation. No fluff, front-loaded with the essential purpose, and well-organized.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to describe return values. It covers purpose, usage, and provides conceptual background. It might benefit from mentioning potential errors or the exact content of 'summaries', but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only get operation with clear alternatives and parameter discovery guidance.

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 only 50% (system_id has a description, but server_version is blank). The description adds meaning to system_id by explaining how to discover IDs ('Discover system IDs with list_groups(kind="system")') and clarifies the system domain. However, it does not provide any semantics for server_version, leaving that parameter vague. Since coverage is low, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 'Get a system group by ID, including summaries of its member threat models.' This specifies the verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from similar tools like list_groups by clarifying it fetches one system only. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use ('single-group fetch is supported for SYSTEMS ONLY') and when not to (tags have no fetch-by-id endpoint), with clear alternatives: 'enumerate tags with list_groups(kind="tag")' and 'list_model_groups'. It also explains how to discover system IDs and add members, giving comprehensive context.

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