Get Organization Group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states 'Read details', indicating a read-only operation, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format, the exact identifier format expected for groupId, or any potential error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 very short and front-loaded with the English purpose. The Chinese intent list adds length but serves a clear i18n purpose. Every sentence earns its place, though the intent list could be seen as slightly redundant.

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 one-parameter read operation, the description is largely sufficient when combined with the schema. It identifies the resource type and action. It lacks details on return shape and usage alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 schema already describes groupId as 'Group ID' at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the group is a Microsoft Entra or Microsoft 365 group, but does not specify the format (e.g., object ID, UPN, mail address) beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Read details for a Microsoft Entra or Microsoft 365 group.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling group tools like groups_list, groups_list_members, and groups_list_owners, which focus on listing or membership operations.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that groups_list can find group IDs, or that groups_list_members/owners are separate tools for specific group-related queries, so an agent gets no usage context.

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