get_group_mfa_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only restates the tool's purpose without disclosing any behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential for large result sets, pagination behavior, or what happens for empty groups. This is a significant gap for a tool that may access sensitive MFA data.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. It is optimally 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?

The tool has one parameter, a 100% documented schema, and an output schema that covers return values. The description is sufficient for a simple getter, though it could add context about permissions or scope. Overall, it is complete enough given the low complexity.

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% for the single parameter group_id, which is described as 'The unique identifier of the group.' The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Get MFA status for all members of a group.' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('MFA status for all members of a group'). It distinguishes from sibling get_user_mfa_status by specifying group-level scope.

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 implies usage for group-level MFA queries, and the group_id parameter makes the target clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like get_user_mfa_status or get_group_members, nor does it provide exclusions.

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