get_node_group_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns nodes, links, and group I/O, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. It also omits any error behavior or what happens if the node group does not exist.

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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and resource, and then lists the specific information categories. There is no redundancy or filler, making it an effective length for a simple getter tool.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, a get operation, and an output schema that presumably defines the return structure), the description is largely complete. It specifies what the tool retrieves, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. However, it lacks any mention of usage context or potential failure modes, which slightly detracts from completeness.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the 'node_group_name' parameter beyond what is minimally implied by the schema field name. The description mentions 'node group' but does not clarify what value to provide or any format requirements. Since the parameter is not self-explanatory and there is no supplementary description, the agent receives insufficient guidance.

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 tool's function: retrieving detailed information about a node group, specifying the resource (node group) and the included aspects (nodes, links, group I/O). This distinctly separates it from any sibling 'get_*' tools, as it is the only one targeting node group details. The verb 'Get' and the resource are specific and unambiguous.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over similar ones like 'get_gn_node_tree'. An agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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