pmg_what_group_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares READ-ONLY, indicating no side effects, and specifies it returns 'a dict of the group's config.' It does not detail error behavior or auth requirements beyond the config hint, but the read-only disclosure and return type description are sufficient for 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 three sentences, each essential. It front-loads 'READ-ONLY' and immediately states the purpose, then provides usage guidance. No 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?

The description mentions the return type ('dict of config'), but lacks details on the dict's structure. However, the context signals indicate an output schema exists (true), so the burden on the description for return value details is lower. Given the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a getter tool with good sibling differentiation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates that ogroup is a numeric ID from pmg_what_groups_list, reinforcing the schema. The proximo_target parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema's description. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a PMG RuleDB 'what' object group's configuration.' It specifies the resource ('what' object group) and distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_what_groups_list (list groups) and pmg_what_group_objects (list objects inside the group).

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?

It explicitly notes the tool is READ-ONLY and requires PROXIMO_PMG_* config. It clarifies that the ogroup parameter is a numeric ID from pmg_what_groups_list, not a name, and directs to pmg_what_group_objects for listing objects inside. This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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