cigchat_team_agent_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly declares the required 'Manage Team' scope, which is valuable auth context beyond the schema. It also implies a read-only operation via 'Get', though it does not detail return format or error behavior, which is acceptable for a simple single-id GET.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose, then gives the endpoint and scope requirement. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete: it states the operation, the resource, the path, and the required scope. The agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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?

The schema already defines id with type and a description ('Agent Group Id'), which is 100% coverage. The description's endpoint [GET /team/agent-group/{id}] adds the context that the id is a path parameter, but it does not provide additional guidance on how to obtain or interpret the id (e.g., from a list tool). This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Get') on a specific resource ('agent group information and members'), and the endpoint [GET /team/agent-group/{id}] reinforces this. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigchat_team_agent_groups (which likely lists groups) and cigchat_team_create_agent_group (which creates).

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: you need a specific agent group id and the 'Manage Team' scope on the token. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use X instead', but the singular 'agent group' and the {id} endpoint make it clear this is for fetching one group's details, differentiating it from list/create/update/delete siblings.

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