get_document_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that only metadata is returned, which is not in the annotations. It is silent on the paging behavior implied by text_offsets/section_offsets and on what summary vs full detail yields.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the sibling routing as the trailing clause. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is the unexplained detail enum and cursor-based continuation semantics, which an agent must dig out of the schema alone.

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 only 40% across 5 parameters. The description names the two identifier parameters and clarifies they are interchangeable entry points, but says nothing about detail (summary vs full), text_offsets, or section_offsets, leaving the pagination contract entirely to the schema. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 (Read) and resource (native Kaiten document group) plus the two accepted identifiers (URL or document_group_uid). It also distinguishes itself from list_document_children by declaring it returns metadata only, so an agent can separate it from the content-browsing sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes content browsing to list_document_children, giving a clear when-to-use-this-instead condition. It does not say how to choose between the url and document_group_uid inputs, nor does it distinguish itself from the sibling get_document, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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