get_computer_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It conveys that the operation is a read-only lookup and discloses that it intentionally bypasses mutable connection state, which is valuable behavior context. It does not discuss potential errors or authentication, but for a simple lookup with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second sentence explains the implementation rationale. No information is redundant or excessive.

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?

The tool has only two required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema. The description provides the necessary context about what the tool does and why it is built a certain way. For a straightforward lookup tool, this fully covers the agent's needs.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters (site_path and group_name) with examples, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds little beyond reinforcing the 'explicit site path' aspect, which is a minor enhancement. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Look up'), a clear resource ('computer group'), and the precise scope ('by name within an explicit site path'). It also distinguishes itself from an alternative implementation (besapi's get_computergroup), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among sibling tools.

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 clarifies that this tool is the preferred choice when an explicit site path is required and the mutable state of besapi's get_computergroup should be avoided. While it doesn't explicitly mention sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, it gives a clear rationale for choosing this tool over the alternative implementation.

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