get_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of implying safety and side effects. The verb 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only lookup, and the scope is clearly limited to retrieving group information, but the description does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or mention authentication or response behavior.

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, direct sentence with no filler. The key object, scope, and parameter are all front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, so the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly richer by hinting at what 'detailed information' includes, but the low complexity keeps the missing detail from being a significant gap.

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 the schema already documents that cn is the common name of the group to retrieve. The description only restates the parameter concept, adding no new semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: it retrieves detailed information about a single FreeIPA group using its cn. This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_groups, so an agent can select the right tool without inspecting the schema.

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: use this tool when you need details about a specific group identified by cn. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_groups or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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