beta_groups__get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent. The endpoint is a minor addition, but the description does not disclose other behavioral traits like response size or rate limits. The schema's fields_betaGroups description mentions the 200 KB limit, which adds some transparency, but that is outside the description itself.

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 exceptionally concise: one clear sentence plus an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every element is meaningful with zero waste.

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 with three parameters, the combination of annotations and schema is rich. The include/fields_betaGroups descriptions explain relationship costs and response size limits, and the readOnlyHint covers safety. The description itself is minimal but sufficient given the structured context that is already available.

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 all parameters (id, include, fields_betaGroups) have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'one beta group by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like beta_groups__list (reads many) and beta_groups__delete (destructive). The HTTP endpoint [GET /v1/betaGroups/{id}] further reinforces the exact operation.

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 the use case: when you have a specific beta group ID and need that single record. The schema's id description ('ID from the matching list call') hints at a list-then-get flow, providing some guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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