Show group

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

Annotations fully cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, so the description's burden is low. It adds the API endpoint, which is useful but does not disclose response shape or error behavior. This is acceptable for a simple GET, but no extra behavioral context is provided beyond the endpoint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool name and a clear verb. The endpoint line adds reference value without padding. No wasted words.

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 simple GET-by-ID operation with full annotations and schema coverage, the description is adequate. It confirms the action and endpoint, but does not explicitly state the return payload (the group details) or potential error conditions, which would be expected in the absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the only parameter 'id' with a clear description (100% coverage). The description adds only the nuance that the group exists ('existing group'), but otherwise adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieves the details of an existing group,' giving a specific verb and resource. The mention of the REST endpoint further disambiguates it from sibling tools like showTag or showDevice.

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 implies use when you need details for a specific group ID, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., listGroups) or when not to use it, so it slightly misses the explicit guidance bar.

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