superset_group_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns name, label, description, roles, and users, and the phrase 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, permission requirements, or possible errors, which are minor gaps for a simple getter.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a returns line, and an Args line. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (what the tool does and what it returns) is front-loaded.

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 get-by-ID tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return value, and parameter sourcing. It does not elaborate on error cases or authentication, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is adequately complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by describing the parameter as 'Group ID (from group_list)', which adds the source context beyond the schema's bare 'integer' type. This gives the agent actionable guidance on where to find the ID, fully covering the single 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?

The description opens with 'Get detailed information about a group by ID', which uses a specific verb (get), a clear resource (group), and a clear scope (by ID). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like superset_group_list (which lists groups) and superset_group_update/delete, and the returned fields (name, label, description, roles, users) further clarify the purpose.

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 tool provides clear context by stating the parameter is 'Group ID (from group_list)', which implies a prerequisite step of calling superset_group_list to obtain the ID. This gives a usage flow, though it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like superset_group_role_get or superset_group_user_get.

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