get_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and locality profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral on top: it does not say what happens if neither identifier matches, whether name matching is exact or fuzzy, or what occurs when both identifiers are supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the differentiating detail (id or name) arrives before the agent needs to choose parameters. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has only two optional parameters, which keeps the burden low. However, the ambiguity created by two optional identifiers with empty defaults and no stated precedence or not-found behavior leaves a real gap for a lookup tool.

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 0% and both parameters are optional with empty-string defaults, so the description must carry the meaning. It does partially: it explains that the lookup is keyed either by id or by name, which is the intent behind group_id and group_name. It does not state precedence when both are passed, nor whether the name must match exactly, nor why group_id accepts both string and integer.

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?

"Get one room or zone, by id or by name" pairs a specific verb (get) with a specific resource and clarifies that Hue "groups" are rooms/zones, which the parameter names alone would not reveal. The singular "one" implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_all_groups, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular "one" plus "by id or by name" suggests this is the single-resource lookup versus get_all_groups. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative lookup path (e.g. find_light_by_name equivalent for groups), and no prerequisites.

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