get_group_path

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 states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned path. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every part contributing to understanding the purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'full path' output looks like (e.g., list of group names, IDs, or structure), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like errors or constraints, making it inadequate for a tool with 2 required parameters and no structured support.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('groupId' and 'workspaceId'). The description implies these are needed to locate the group but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples.

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 the resource 'full path from root to a specific group', making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_group_tree' or 'get_child_groups', which also retrieve group-related information, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_group_tree' or 'list_groups'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, offering only a basic functional statement.

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