keycloak_get_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is known. The description adds that the result includes attributes and subgroups, which is useful context, but it does not describe response shape, error behavior, or why subgroups are included in this call rather than a separate endpoint.

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 that states the operation, the target resource, and the return contents. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 operation with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete. It conveys what the response includes ('attributes and subgroups'), and the schema covers the parameters. The only minor gap is that it does not mention pagination or the exact representation of subgroups, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major deficiency.

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 schema already clarifies that groupId must be the UUID (`id` field) not name/path, and that realm defaults to KEYCLOAK_REALM. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one group'), and clarifies the return scope ('with its attributes and subgroups'). This distinguishes it from listing tools like keycloak_list_groups, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 use when you need a single group's details, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as keycloak_get_group_members, keycloak_get_group_role_mappings, or keycloak_get_user_groups. The intended use is inferable but not spelled out.

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