get_group

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the operation safe, and the description is consistent with that annotation. The 'by numeric ID' detail adds a small behavioral constraint beyond the annotation, but the description provides no information about return format, permissions, or error behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentence contains the action, the resource, and the key constraint. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter, the description is largely sufficient: an agent knows what to call and what input to provide. It falls slightly short of a perfect score because there is no output schema and no explicit statement about what 'details' are returned or what happens for an unknown ID.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that the ID is numeric and that RT has no name route for groups. The tool description merely repeats 'numeric ID' and adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('a specific group'), and a concrete identifier route ('by numeric ID'). This distinguishes it from list_groups, create_group, and similar group-related tools even without naming them explicitly.

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 single-object retrieval rather than listing groups, and the numeric-ID constraint indicates how to target the group. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_groups, nor does it name any excluded routes.

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