get_util_group

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

The verb 'get' indicates a read-only operation, and no side effects are implied. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately conveys the safe, non-mutating nature of the tool, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only'.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

This is a simple read operation. The description sufficiently specifies what the tool returns (metadata plus member utils' names/params) without requiring additional context. No output schema is provided, so no further detail is needed.

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 covers 50% of parameters (project is described, name is not). The description does not explicitly describe 'name,' but its meaning as the group name is implied by the tool's purpose. The description partially compensates for the missing schema coverage, 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?

Description clearly states the action (get) and the resource (util group), and specifies the output (metadata plus member utils' names/params). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_util_groups (which likely lists only group names) and get_util (which gets a single util).

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need metadata and member utils for a specific group), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_util_groups. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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