getGroup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error handling, permission requirements, or what happens if the group does not exist. The verb 'get' implies safety but does not adequately disclose behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is zero filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and easy to process.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps. There is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not specify what the return value contains (e.g., the full group object) or behavior on not-found errors. However, given the simplicity of the tool, this may be adequate in context.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter (type: number, description: 'Group ID'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a group by ID' clearly states the action (get), resource (group), and search criterion (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listGroups and updateGroup by explicitly indicating a single-group retrieval by ID.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of exclusions. The description relies solely on the verb 'get' to imply usage, but does not reference sibling tools like listGroups or listRoundRobinGroups, which are the obvious comparisons.

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