yeastar_get_ring_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. 'Get' implies a safe read operation and the description discloses the kind of data returned. It does not state error behavior for invalid or nonexistent IDs, auth requirements, or side effects, though those are low-risk for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by the prerequisite. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the key fields returned, and where to obtain the required ID. It could mention behavior on a not-found ID or the return format, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already documents the sole parameter at 100% coverage ('Object ID, from the corresponding list tool'), and the description simply restates that idea ('Requires an ID from yeastar_list_ring_groups'). No new semantic detail is added, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('single ring group'), and enumerates the detail contents (member extensions, ring strategy, timeout destination). This makes it immediately distinct from the sibling list_ring_groups tool and from other get_* 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 says 'Requires an ID from yeastar_list_ring_groups', which tells the agent the proper prerequisite and workflow: list first, then fetch details for one ID. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, but the single-vs-list distinction is clear enough from the phrasing.

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