get_group_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the function without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, whether projects are included by default (even though the with_projects param exists), or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple get tool, front-loading the core action and target.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and an output schema exists which likely explains the return structure. However, the description omits the behavior controlled by with_projects (i.e., whether projects are included). Given the explicit parameter, this is a notable gap. The description is adequate for basic use but does not fully cover the tool's capabilities.

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 description adds 'by ID or path' but that information is already in the schema's group_id parameter description. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for with_projects either. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 is specific: 'Get GitLab group details by ID or path.' It clearly states the verb (Get), resource (group details), and provides a method (ID or path). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_groups_tool (which lists groups) and get_project_tool (which gets project details).

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 usage (when you need details of a specific group) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on choosing this over list_groups_tool or get_group_projects_tool, but the context is clear enough for a basic get operation.

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