Get a group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value beyond that by disclosing what data the response contains: global permissions, page rules, and members. It also reveals an important workflow trait: update_group replaces the whole rule set, so this tool is the safe prerequisite read.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior and result contents; the second provides essential workflow context about update_group. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, the returned components, and the practical reason to call it. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter, group_id, is already documented as 'Numeric Wiki.js id.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the full burden. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one group with its global permissions, its page rules and its members.' It also frames the tool as 'the authoritative answer to who can see or edit what', which clearly communicates its unique role among the siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it is the authoritative source for group permissions and 'what update_group needs as its starting point.' It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives like list_groups or get_user, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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