Get Sharing Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the group is not found, whether partial results are returned). It aligns with the annotations and is adequate for a simple fetch.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for a minimal read operation.

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 single-parameter, read-only fetch tool with full schema coverage, the description is essentially complete. No output schema exists, but the tool's purpose is self-evident from name and description. Minor gaps like return format or not-found behavior are not critical for this simplicity.

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%, with the parameter 'group_id' described as 'Sharing group id'. The description's 'by id' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Fetch a sharing group by id' clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (sharing group) with a specific lookup method (by id). It is distinct from list-type siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar get operations like lyzr_sharing_get_resource_groups.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_sharing_list_groups or lyzr_sharing_get_resource_groups. The only implied context is that a group_id is needed, which is already evident from the schema.

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