AccessGroupsGetDetails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of response shape, error behavior, pagination, or permission requirements. It neither contradicts the annotations nor meaningfully extends them.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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 get-by-id tool with read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of an output schema and no explicit note about the shape of the returned 'details', but the tool name and 'Get details' phrasing make the expected outcome reasonably clear.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The single parameter accessGroupId is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces that it identifies the access group, but it does not add details about where the id comes from or any constraints beyond the schema's int32 format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a single access group by id'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like AccessGroupsGetList or AccessGroupsGetTeachers. The scope is precisely defined as a single entity identified by accessGroupId.

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?

Usage is only implied: use this when you need details for one access group by its id. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as AccessGroupsGetList for bulk retrieval, leaving an agent to infer the boundary from sibling names.

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