Get a user group by id (ICP-level)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the response contains one group with roles and member preview, which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, whether archived groups are retrievable, or any read-only guarantee. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 fragment with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the key outcome and earns its place by noting the ICP-level scope and the roles/member preview, which adds value over the title and schema.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema, the tool is low complexity, and the description covers the essential return shape. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not clarify the meaning of 'ICP-level' or how this tool relates to archived vs. active user groups, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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%, but the description does not mention group_id or its expected format. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and only the 'ICP-level' qualifier hints at context beyond the schema. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly indicates the tool retrieves a single ICP-level user group with its roles and member preview. The title 'Get a user group by id' adds retrieval semantics, and 'ICP-level' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_user_groups and get_em_user_group. However, 'ICP-level' is not explained, so the purpose is clear but not fully self-contained.

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_user_groups, list_archived_user_groups, or get_em_user_group. The description implies a singular lookup by id but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool.

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