Get group

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

Annotations already mark this as a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context like auth requirements, response shape, or error handling, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is under-specified but contains no fluff, making it efficient if not fully informative.

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 get operation, the description is minimally sufficient, but the unclear with_projects parameter and the lack of an output schema or return details create gaps. The description does not help an agent distinguish this from sibling get/list tools, and the optional parameter's effect is unexplained.

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 50% – group_id is well-documented but with_projects is not. The tool description 'Details for one group' adds no parameter meaning, leaving the optional with_projects parameter ambiguous. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Details for one group' clearly conveys that the tool returns information about a single group. It distinguishes it from list-type tools like gitlab_list_groups, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_list_groups or gitlab_get_project. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints are given.

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