Retrieve complete details for a specific behavior policy group by ID. Use this to inspect the full configuration and rules of a group identified via the list tool.
Get full detail for a single behavior policy group. Requires a group ID from teramind_list_behavior_policy_groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Behavior policy group ID, from teramind_list_behavior_policy_groups. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not state it explicitly, nor does it describe the return format, potential errors, or any side effects. For a simple getter this is acceptable but minimal.
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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides the key prerequisite, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
With no output schema, the description should clarify what 'full detail' means, such as whether it includes nested objects or specific fields. The vague phrase 'full detail' leaves some ambiguity, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the gap.
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 fully documents the 'id' parameter with a clear description referencing the source. The tool description repeats this information without adding additional semantic detail, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
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 ('Get full detail') and the resource ('a single behavior policy group'), and explicitly references the sibling tool that provides the required ID, distinguishing it from list and get functions for other entities.
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?
It explicitly states the prerequisite ('Requires a group ID from teramind_list_behavior_policy_groups'), which is essential for correct usage. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.