pmg_when_group_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation (safe) and specifies config dependency and API path. However, it does not disclose error behavior, return format (though output schema exists), or authentication details. The read intent is clear, but more explicit behavioral notes would improve 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: first states purpose, second notes config requirement, third explains API path and ogroup. It is front-loaded and concise, with no extraneous information. Could be slightly more structured, but it efficiently conveys essential details.

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 existence of an output schema and the tool's specific context (PMG RuleDB), the description covers core usage: what it does, prerequisites, and parameter sourcing. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or error cases, but for a focused read operation, it is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation.

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 50%; the ogroup parameter lacks a schema description. The description fills this gap by explaining ogroup is a numeric ID from a list query, not the group name. The proximo_target parameter is already well-described in the schema. Thus, the description adds significant semantic value for the key parameter.

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 retrieves a PMG RuleDB 'when' object group's configuration (read). It specifies the resource and differentiates from sibling CRUD tools like create, delete, update, and list. The API path is also provided, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'PROXIMO_PMG_* config' and explains how to obtain the ogroup parameter: from the matching pmg_*_groups_list. It doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this vs. siblings like pmg_when_group_objects or pmg_when_groups_list, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer that this is a read operation for a specific group's configuration.

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