group_expand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target, with no mention of side effects, prerequisites, state changes, or return behavior. For a UI interaction tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so sparse that it lacks substantive information, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description provides almost no context. An agent cannot determine what the parameters do, what happens after expansion, or what conditions must be met. The tool is almost completely underspecified.

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%, meaning the description must explain the parameters, but it does not. The parameters 'name', 'title', and 'session_id' are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance beyond their generic names.

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 clearly states the action (expand) and the resource (a collapsible form group). It is specific enough to distinguish from the obvious sibling group_collapse, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb-resource pair is unambiguous.

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 group_collapse, group_activate_page, or other group operations. It simply states what it does without context on prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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