pmg_what_group_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It only states it's a read and mentions a config requirement. It does not disclose idempotency, side effects (likely none), permissions, response format, or potential errors. For a get operation, important context is missing.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, prerequisite, and parameter hint. No redundant or vague wording. Efficient and front-loaded with the core action.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main aspects: what it does, requirements, and parameter usage. It is adequate for a straightforward get operation, though it could mention the read-only nature explicitly.

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 description adds significant guidance for the 'ogroup' parameter beyond the schema (type string). It clarifies the format (numeric ID) and source (from groups list). With schema coverage at 50%, this extra information compensates well. The 'proximo_target' parameter is adequately described in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it gets a PMG RuleDB 'what' object group's configuration (a read operation). It specifies the resource type and distinguishes from sibling create/delete/update tools by noting it's a read. The PMG path and context further clarify purpose.

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?

Description includes a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config') and explains that 'ogroup' must be a numeric ID from the groups list, not the group name. This provides context for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reading vs. listing).

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