vibemk_get_service_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It only says 'get' and 'show', which weakly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or any other behavioral details.

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 very short and focused. The two clauses are somewhat redundant ('Get service group details' and 'Show detailed information about a specific service group'), but there is no filler or irrelevant content.

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 tool, the description provides enough high-level purpose and parameter context. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what 'details' actually includes, so the agent is left with some uncertainty 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?

The input schema already provides a description for the 'name' parameter, and the tool description adds little beyond repeating that a service group name is used. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is acceptable even though no extra semantic detail is added.

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?

Clearly states the action (get) and resource (service group details), with a parameter that identifies the specific service group. It is distinguishable from the plural 'get_service_groups' sibling by the singular focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with it.

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 implies a read operation for a single service group but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_service_groups, list_service_groups, or the create/update/delete siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name.

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