get_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds that it returns 'details' and accepts a name or sys_id, but does not disclose behavior on not-found cases or response structure. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 entire description is a single sentence of seven words, with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup, the description fully conveys the operation and expected input. There is no output schema, but 'details' sufficiently implies the return of group attributes, and the context of a getter tool makes this sufficient.

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 documents group_identifier as 'Group name or sys_id', and the description repeats the same information. No additional semantics are provided, so the baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' with the resource 'assignment group details', clearly indicating a retrieval operation. It also specifies the lookup method 'by name or sys_id', distinguishing it from the sibling list_groups which presumably enumerates groups.

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 phrase 'by name or sys_id' implies the tool is for when you have a specific group identifier, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_groups or when not to use it. There is no exclusion or comparison with sibling tools, so guidance is limited.

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