Get Group Data

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

There are no annotations, and the description is a noun phrase rather than a behavioral statement. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only, possible authorization requirements, or error behavior. The 'get' in the title implies a read operation, but the description itself carries little behavioral information.

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 very compact and front-loaded with the most important data fields. It earns its place, but it is a fragment rather than a full sentence and would benefit from a verb and slight context.

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 one-parameter getter, listing the returned fields is helpful. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of response structure, error conditions, and sibling routing leaves clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the group_id parameter beyond the general group resource. The schema only supplies type 'string' and required status, so an agent does not learn ID format, meaning, or constraints from the description.

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 'Данные группы: название, владелец, участники, права' clearly identifies the resource (group) and the key data fields returned (name, owner, participants, rights). It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name for the action, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling getters.

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?

Usage context is implied by the resource: call this when group metadata is needed. No when/when-not guidance or comparison with sibling tools such as get_contact_info or get_chat_history is provided.

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