Get computer group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains evaluation order, parentheses/join preservation, the member count, the ambiguous-name candidate fallback, and the subtle regex containment trap, all of which are non-obvious behaviors.

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 composed of four dense sentences, each providing unique information: core function, a critical caveat, input resolution behavior, and member inclusion policy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause earns its place without redundancy.

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 the complexity of the tool (criteria evaluation) and the lack of an output schema, the description covers input interpretation, output composition, and edge cases (ambiguous names, regex semantics). It could explicitly mention the return format, but the essential information needed to use the tool effectively is present.

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?

Although the schema descriptors already cover all three parameters, the description adds semantic meaning: 'Accepts a group id or a name substring' clarifies the group input, and 'Members are NOT included unless asked for' plus 'a count is always returned' enriches understanding of includeMembers and the output. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as 'Read a computer group's criteria' with specific details like 'in evaluation order' and 'plus a member count'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getDeviceGroupMembers, which presumably return member lists, and findDeviceGroups, which finds 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 context on how to use the group parameter ('id or name substring') and clarifies the default behavior for members ('Members are NOT included unless asked for'). Though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, the scope is well defined, and it implies that members are rarely the question.

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