Get Computer Group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: it queries /api/computergroups/{site_path} directly and deliberately avoids besapi's mutable 'current site path' connection state, implying a stateless, side-effect-free read that requires the caller to supply the path. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or missing-group handling, so it is good but not complete.

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 sentences with the core operation front-loaded; nothing is redundant. The second sentence is longer than needed for the point it makes (why besapi's helper is bypassed) but it does earn its place as rationale rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both required params are fully documented. The remaining gap is behavioral: with no annotations, the description could state that this is a read-only operation and what happens on a nonexistent group, but it is otherwise sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, including site_path format examples ('master', 'custom/MySite'). The description reinforces the 'by name / explicit path' semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (look up) and resource (computer group) plus the scoping constraint (by name, within an explicit site path). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_computer, find_computers, and get_content without opening any 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 implies the retrieval context (named group under an explicit path) but never states when to use this versus alternatives such as get_computer or find_computers, nor any prerequisites. The second sentence explains an implementation choice rather than usage guidance, leaving routing to inference.

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