get_security_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotation implies—no mention of return format, nesting behavior via depth, or any side effects. It is a bare statement that repeats the tool's function without adding transparency.

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 is concise and front-loaded. It communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words.

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 single-resource getter with a full schema and read-only annotation, the description is adequate. It does not describe the return value, but the operation is straightforward and the parameter schema is complete, so the agent can infer expected behavior. Slight deduction due to lack of explicit mention of which details are returned.

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 (depth, datacenter_id, security_group_id) are already described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the structured data, thus it aligns with the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 details') and the target resource ('a specific security group'). It distinguishes itself from list_security_groups by emphasizing specificity, and from get_security_group_rule by focusing on the group itself.

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 by requiring a specific security_group_id, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_security_groups or get_security_group_rule. No alternative tools are named. The word 'specific' gives some guidance but no explicit when/when-not.

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