get_service_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a read operation. The description adds detail about the return content but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is consistent with annotations and does not contradict them.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Returns, When to use, Workflow, Related tools) using markdown headers and bullet points. It is readable but slightly verbose; some redundancy exists (e.g., the first sentence is repeated in Returns). Overall, it effectively communicates without being excessively long.

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 output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (name, full path, etc.). It also provides usage workflow and related tools, making it complete for a simple get tool with 2 parameters. It could mention handling of the optional fields parameter or limits of the response, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (groupId, fields) described. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides for these parameters. However, the listing of returned fields gives context that might indirectly help parameter selection but does not directly enhance parameter semantics.

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 tool retrieves detailed information about a specific service group by ID. It specifically uses the verb 'Get' and resource 'service group', and the returns section lists specific fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_service_groups (which finds groups) and get_service (for individual services), as shown in the related tools section.

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 explicit 'When to use' bullet points (e.g., get group path, check membership counts) and a workflow that instructs to use list_service_groups first to find the groupId. It also lists related tools with their purposes, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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