Get Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that the result covers clipping masks and compound paths, not just plain groups — but says nothing about traversal depth defaults, output shape, or empty-result behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the retrieval scope is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that key routing information was cut rather than compressed.

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?

All three parameters are optional, the schema fully documents them, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is callable as-is. Still, with no output schema, the description leaves the return structure and the distinction from get_document_structure/get_layers unstated.

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 100%, and the coordinate_system parameter in particular carries a detailed explanation, so the schema does the heavy lifting here. The description adds no syntax, filtering, or depth semantics beyond what the schema already documents, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('structure of groups, clipping masks, and compound paths'), so an agent knows it retrieves group hierarchy data. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_document_structure, get_layers, or get_path_items, which could plausibly return overlapping information.

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 reach for this tool versus get_document_structure, get_layers, or ungroup_objects, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the retrieval scope implied by the sentence.

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