blueprint_get_property_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the underlying HTTP route, which is mild context, and says nothing about error behavior when the ID does not exist or about what the returned details contain.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. The second line is a raw route string rather than prose, which is terse but useful for agents that reason over endpoints.

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 read-by-id tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition is sufficient to invoke correctly. However, with no output schema, the description never indicates what the returned property group details include, leaving that entirely to discovery.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the field-selection array and the apiVersion date format. The description adds no additional meaning about `select` semantics or version fallback behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns property group details") plus the exact endpoint, so the agent knows this fetches a single property group by ID. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from blueprint_list_property_groups or blueprint_get_resource_type, but the singular resource and required ID make the intent unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus blueprint_list_property_groups (enumerate then fetch) or blueprint_update_property_group/blueprint_delete_property_group. The only implied condition is the presence of a required propertyGroupId parameter, which is inference rather than stated guidance.

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