pve_group_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies the tool is 'read-only', implying no side effects, and describes the return value. However, it does not disclose what happens if the groupid does not exist or any permission requirements, but for a simple get operation, the transparency 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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and return info, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

For a read-only get tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, and alternative tools. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but the simplicity of the operation means this is mostly sufficient.

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% (only proximo_target has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema; groupid is only mentioned in the purpose context. The baseline for 50% coverage is a 3, and the description does not compensate with additional parameter details.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'group's full config', and explicitly lists the return fields (groupid, comment, member list). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_group_create/update/delete and pve_acl_list by specifying their different purposes.

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 explicit when-to-use context: to get a group's config. It also tells when not to use it: for managing the group (use create/update/delete) and for viewing ACL entries (use pve_acl_list). This fully covers usage guidance.

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