Get group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile fully. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note about missing-group behavior, permission scope, or response shape – so it contributes no extra behavioral value.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than model conciseness.

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?

With a rich schema, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description needs to carry little – but for a lookup tool sitting among list/search siblings it should still indicate the ID-known precondition and point to glpi_list_groups.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear docs on fields and format enums and the groupId type. 'By ID' aligns with the required groupId param but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a group') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling glpi_list_groups, which is the obvious alternative for group lookups.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of glpi_list_groups as the alternative when the ID is unknown. The agent must infer that this tool requires a known groupId from the 'by ID' phrasing alone.

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