hcloud_show_security_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what details are returned, whether rules are included, or how a missing ID is handled. For a read tool with full annotation coverage this is a minimal contribution.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely well-structured.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters. It is missing any statement of what the returned detail comprises or the failure mode for an unknown ID, which an agent would want before calling.

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% with only two parameters (region, security_group_id), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, scoping, or sourcing hints for either parameter.

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 details") and a specific resource ("a specific security group"), which distinguishes it from the list-style sibling hcloud_list_security_groups. The differentiation is only implicit through the word "specific" rather than an explicit contrast with the sibling, so it falls 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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a group ID must first come from hcloud_list_security_groups), and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the single-resource lookup counterpart to the list tool.

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