get_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'full details' and 'member count' but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is adequate but lacks depth 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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose immediately. Every sentence serves a clear function: first establishes purpose and key output, second provides critical parameter differentiation. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should convey what 'full details' entails beyond member count. It leaves ambiguity about the response structure. While the parameter schema is thorough, the incomplete output description and lack of error or edge-case handling make it minimally adequate for a simple read tool.

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 100%, so the description's contribution is additive. It reinforces the identifier format guidance already in the schema, but adds the detail 'including member count' which hints at output structure. This adds value beyond the schema, earning a score above baseline 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Get full details') and the resource ('specific group'), including the specific output detail 'member count'. It also distinguishes between on-prem and Azure AD by providing identifier guidance, which helps differentiate this tool from siblings like 'get_group_members' or 'list_groups'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use CN/sAMAccountName vs display name/object ID based on the source, which is helpful for correct parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_group' vs 'get_group_members'), missing an opportunity to prevent misuse.

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