get_group_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds 'live' to indicate fresh data. No further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, auth). With strong annotations, description is adequate but not expansive.

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?

Two concise sentences, no filler. Purpose and return type front-loaded. Every word carries weight.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential purpose and explicitly lists return fields (participants, settings, invite config). This compensates for missing output schema. Slightly more detail about when to use could push to 5.

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 100% and already provides detailed format for chat_jid. Description mentions 'group JID' but adds no new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('live group metadata'), and specifies key components ('participants, settings, invite config'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_group_invite_link or update_group_participants, which focus on specific sub-aspects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it returns broad metadata, but does not mention when to prefer it over siblings (e.g., for invite link, use get_group_invite_link). Agent must infer from tool names.

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