Get a protocol 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 add one meaningful behavioral detail: the response includes up to 100 items, implying a limit. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authorization needs, or return format details beyond what the output schema might provide.

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 extremely short with no filler, making it concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks structure; it does not fully communicate the tool's purpose or behavior. The brevity is not a virtue because it omits essential usage and parameter context.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema) and the availability of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use this get tool over list_protocol_groups, nor does it mention error conditions or pagination details. The 'up to 100 items' limit is helpful, but the overall context is too sparse for an agent to select and invoke this tool confidently.

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 has one parameter, group_id, with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain the parameter's format, purpose beyond its name, or any constraints. The title says 'by id', which indirectly clarifies group_id, but the description itself adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 protocol group with up to 100 of its items' identifies the resource (protocol group) and a key scope limitation, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'. It reads as a fragment rather than a clear action statement, though it does distinguish this from list_protocol_groups by indicating it returns a single group with 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_protocol_groups or get_rule_group. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts. The title hints at retrieval by ID, but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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