Get Root Outcome Group

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error conditions, or relation to other outcome groups). With annotations lowering the bar, a neutral score is appropriate as nothing contradicts.

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 concise sentence that directly states the function. There is no extraneous wording, making it highly efficient and 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 read operation, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly mention the return value or potential errors, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the core function.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters (context_type and context_id) with clear text. The description adds no additional meaning or usage notes about these parameters, so the baseline of 3 is given since schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('root outcome group') within a context, which distinguishes it from general outcome group tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential alternatives like 'list_outcome_groups' or 'get_outcome_group', so it falls short of a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many outcome-related siblings. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, offering no usage context beyond the inherent meaning of 'root'.

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