get_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it simply restates the retrieval semantics. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose potential errors, response shape, or authorization needs.

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 focused sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It communicates the essential operation immediately and is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention the return value or not-found behavior, but the tool's simplicity means an agent can invoke it correctly with the given information.

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 already documents the only parameter with 100% coverage: 'id' as a number with description 'Group ID'. The description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('specific group') with an explicit identifier ('by ID'), which distinguishes this from list_groups and other group CRUD operations. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not name an alternative to explicitly differentiate from.

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 phrase 'specific group by ID' implies this tool is for retrieving one known group rather than listing all groups, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over list_groups or how it relates to other group tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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