group_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get', but does not describe the return format, whether any implicit defaults apply, or what 'etc' may include. This is acceptable for a simple no-parameter getter but not fully transparent.

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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource immediately and includes examples only where they add clarity.

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 parameterless read-only settings getter, the description is largely complete: it names the scope and gives representative output fields. The only minor gap is the open-ended 'etc', which leaves the exact response shape slightly unspecified, but this is not critical for a no-input tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already covers this. The description enhances understanding by naming some of the returned settings (name, currency, etc.), which gives the agent useful context about what the tool returns without needing 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource: 'the current Homebox group's settings'. It even names example fields (name, currency), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on items, locations, labels, and other entities.

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 implies the tool is used when the agent needs the current group's settings, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The narrow resource scope makes the intended use fairly clear, yet there is no direct guidance about sibling tools.

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