get_org_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies read-only, but no details are given about authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the group doesn't exist. The three-word description adds no behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (3 words), but this comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. A single additional sentence about usage would improve it significantly without harming conciseness.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the return format, possible errors, or any side effects. Adequate completeness would require at least a brief statement about the response.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter 'groupId' with a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify the format or provide examples.

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 'Retrieve a group' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (group), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_org_collection' or 'list_org_groups'. However, it could be more specific by mentioning 'organization group' to align with the tool name.

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?

No guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, when not to, or mention alternatives such as 'list_org_groups' for listing all groups or 'get_org_group_members' for members.

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