Get a port group by id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns exactly one port group and caps its port-range items at 100, which is a meaningful detail beyond the schema. However, it omits information about error handling, pagination, or whether archived groups are included, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, short sentence that conveys the core return shape and a key limit. It is not verbose and the information is front-loaded. It could be improved by adding a verb, but for the information it carries, it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly adequate but has gaps. It explains the one-group result and the 100-item cap, but does not clarify behavior when there are more than 100 items or how to retrieve additional ones. Without annotations, more detail on error scenarios or access requirements would make it complete.

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 has only one parameter, group_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on what group_id represents or how it is used. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions or provide additional context such as format or constraints beyond the schema's basic string type.

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 'One port group with up to 100 of its port-range items' is a noun phrase that does not clearly state the action of retrieving, though it does specify the result scope. It adds a useful detail about the item limit but lacks a clear verb+resource statement beyond the tool's title. It does not strongly distinguish itself from sibling get_* tools aside from mentioning port-range items.

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 like list_port_groups or list_archived_port_groups. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied by the tool name and parameters but not explicitly described.

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