Get project system 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 profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – nothing about missing-ID/404 behavior, required permissions, or what the assignment record contains – so it contributes nothing on this dimension.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is arguably too terse given the sibling tool set, but there is no wasted verbiage to trim.

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 single-record read with complete schema coverage and full annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient. With no output schema, an agent still gets no indication of the returned fields or failure modes, leaving a small but real gap.

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 100%: the single 'id' parameter is typed as a UUID with a regex pattern and the label 'Project system group ID'. The description adds only the words 'by ID', so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (project system group assignment), and cardinality/selector (single, by ID), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_project_system_groups. It does not explicitly name that sibling or any other alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'a single ... by ID' implies the point-lookup use case versus the sibling list tool, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite conditions are stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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