Base Account Get Group Detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'view details', but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens if the path is invalid. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and gives a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant wording. Perfectly concise.

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 simple read tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the main parameter and gives an example. However, it omits the 'access_token' parameter, does not explain return value structure (though output schema exists), and provides no usage context or error handling. Given the simplicity, it is marginally sufficient but lacks completeness for an agent to use it confidently without additional assumptions.

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 provides meaningful context for the 'path' parameter by giving an example format ('dept/it-development'), which is not present in the schema (coverage is 0%). However, it completely ignores the optional 'access_token' parameter, leaving its purpose and usage undocumented. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description partially compensates but does not fully cover all parameters.

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's purpose: viewing details of a group/department by path, with a concrete example ('dept/it-development'). It uses a specific verb ('Xem chi tiết' - view details) and resource (group/department), which distinguishes it from generic tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like base_wework_get_department, so it's not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does, not the conditions that would select it over similar sibling tools like base_account_get_units or base_wework_get_department. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routes.

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