get-group-by-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention expected responses, error behavior, authentication requirements, or whether the group is returned fully or partially.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, effectively communicating the core purpose without verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool does and the schema documents the required input. A minor gap is lack of mention of not-found error behavior, but for a simple get-by-id the description is adequate.

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% because the parameter groupID has a clear description ('ID of group'). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'find' and the specific resource 'user group by its ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-groups (list all groups) and add-group (create group).

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 alternatives such as get-groups. It does not mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving the usage context implied only by sibling tool names.

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