Get Group

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds important operational details: bounded scanning, limit defaults and caps, RESOLUTION_TRUNCATED, and the guarantee of never returning a partial answer. These are substantive behavioral traits beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded: resolution purpose first, routing guidance second, return and bound behavior third. Every sentence adds operational value, and there is no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, but it still clarifies compact vs expanded results and truncation behavior. Combined with annotations and schema, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly in the intended cases.

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 50%, and the description adds useful meaning for identifier resolution (id, name, or slug) and expand: true returning the full Group. It also mentions a limit cap that is not present in the provided schema, which creates minor ambiguity, so it falls short of fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: resolve a user group from an id, name, or slug. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming groups.get for known ids and hudu_search for text discovery, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: when the identifier is a group name. It also names alternatives and exclusions: groups.get is cheaper for a known id, and it is not for text discovery — call hudu_search. This is complete routing guidance.

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