getGroup

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the read-only nature, so the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that—it doesn't state what the response contains, whether it returns a single object, or how the include parameter affects the result. With no output schema, the description fails to carry the burden of explaining the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short, which might be seen as concise, but it is under-specified to the point of uselessness. There is no front-loading of key information, no structure, and the brevity reduces clarity rather than enhancing it. It is not appropriately sized because it omits essential details.

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 absence of an output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and a two-word description, the tool definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what parameters to supply, what each parameter means, or what the response will look like. The tool is indistinguishable from many siblings and lacks even basic context.

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 0%, and the description 'Show group' provides no explanation of the parameters. It doesn't clarify that groupId is required, what format (json/xml) means, or what include options (users, memberships) do. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Show group' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying that it retrieves a single group by ID. It fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'getGroups' or mention the inclusion of users/memberships. No verb-resource clarity is provided beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getGroups'. The description does not mention the required groupId parameter, the optional include parameter, or any context for selecting this tool over others. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are given.

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