pmg_who_group_get

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly labels the operation as read-only, mentions required configuration, and specifies the exact API path. It also warns that ogroup must be a numeric ID, preventing misuse. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise, using two short paragraphs. The core purpose and key details are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the action, noting prerequisites, providing the verified path, and clarifying the parameter. No excess 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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented separately) and the description covers the operation type, prerequisites, and parameter semantics, it is complete for a simple read-only retrieval tool. No missing context.

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 meaning to the ogroup parameter, specifying it must be a numeric ID from the list tool, not a group name. This is not present in the schema (which only defines it as a string without format hints). The proximo_target parameter is already described in the schema, but the ogroup clarification is critical and compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Get a PMG RuleDB 'who' object group's configuration (read)', using a clear verb and specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_who_group_create (create), pmg_who_group_delete (delete), and pmg_who_groups_list (list) by focusing on retrieving a single group's configuration.

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 provides guidance on prerequisites ('Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config') and clarifies that the ogroup parameter is a numeric ID from pmg_*_groups_list, not a group name. It does not explicitly list when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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