get_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and mentions included details. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimally 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 a single concise sentence covering the essential purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from detail, but it remains efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the main output (group details and child indices). However, the input parameter is critically under-explained, and the overall completeness is just adequate.

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 0%, and the tool description does not explain the 'group_index' parameter beyond its title. There is no indication of indexing (0-based or 1-based), valid ranges, or how to obtain the index. The description adds no value over 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves details of a group track including child track indices. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('group track'). While it differentiates from siblings like 'get_group_children' (which focuses only on children), it does not explicitly distinguish, so it's not a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_group_children', 'list_groups'). The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is or isn't appropriate.

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