Get Group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields and explicitly excludes contact membership, which is a key behavioral trait. While it doesn't discuss errors, auth, or other edge cases, for a simple getter this is sufficient and goes beyond a bare statement.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler. Each sentence earns its place: first states purpose, second lists return fields and the exclusion/alternative.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and a key limitation. It is complete and self-contained, offering all necessary context to use the tool 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% with parameter 'group_id' already described. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get details' with resource 'single group', clearly distinguishing from sibling 'get_groups' (plural) and 'get_contacts_in_group'. It also enumerates the returned fields (name, sharing settings, team IDs, color), which adds precision.

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 states what it does NOT include (contact membership data) and directs to the alternative tool 'get_contacts_in_group'. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, which is rare and valuable.

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