pve_get_group

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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the group doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), or the format of the returned configuration. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. This is an example of efficient communication where every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves configuration data. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes (e.g., JSON structure, key fields) or behavioral aspects like error responses. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'groupid' documented as 'Group ID'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this (e.g., explaining what a group ID is or where to find it). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 group configuration' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('group configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'configuration' entails (e.g., settings, members, permissions) and doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get' tools like pve_get_user or pve_get_pool beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a group ID), contrast with sibling tools like pve_list_groups (which lists groups without details), or specify use cases (e.g., for editing or auditing). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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