Show Project Distribution Group

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it returns a JSON object, which is consistent. It does not contradict annotations and provides minimal additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already cover.

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 three sentences long, clearly stating purpose, usage context, and required parameters. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it includes an endpoint URL that might be extraneous for an agent, slightly reducing 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return type but does not describe the return structure or the role of the optional parameters. Terms like 'Directory records' are slightly ambiguous. It is minimally complete for an agent to use but lacks deeper 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description only lists required parameters, repeating what the schema already provides. It does not add new meaning or clarify the optional parameters like view or include_ancestors.

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 tool shows details of a specific Project Distribution Group by its identifier. It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the siblings show_project_distribution_group_v1_0_2 or the list versions, which reduces clarity in distinguishing between similar tools.

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 suggests using this tool to fetch full details of a specific group by its identifier, implying when to use it. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like list_project_distribution_groups or the other show version.

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