group_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only query operation and discloses pagination via limit and skip parameters. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or return format, which are relevant for an agent to understand what will happen.

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 well-organized with a clear opening sentence, a bulleted list of info_type options, and a labeled args section. Every line is informative and there is no redundant or vague content. It remains concise despite covering many options.

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 description covers all parameters and enumerates the full set of info_type options, giving a complete picture of the tool's capabilities. It lacks explicit details about return structure or error handling, but for a simple query tool with no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained with its purpose, default value, and additional context (e.g., limit is 'useful in large environments'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource, 'Query group data from BloodHound,' and then enumerates the exact info_type options, making it unambiguous what the tool does. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target other entity types like user_info or domain_info.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by listing all retrievable group-related info types (info, members, sessions, etc.). It implies it is the go-to for group data, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is sufficient, but exclusions are not mentioned.

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