get_group_file_system_info

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. The description only states the operation but does not disclose any side effects, output format, or access requirements. For a retrieval tool, it does not clarify whether this returns metadata, hierarchy, or storage stats. Significant gap given zero annotation support.

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?

One short sentence, no fluff. It is concise and to the point. The structure is acceptable for a simple tool.

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?

Only one required parameter and a clear operation, but no output schema and no behavioral details. The description is sufficient for basic invocation, but given the tool's purpose, it lacks explanation of what 'file system information' includes, which could lead to ambiguity. More detail on return structure or usage context would improve completeness.

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% for the single parameter, group_id, so the description does not need to explain it. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get group file system information'), and the sibling list includes similar tools like get_group_root_files and get_group_files_by_folder. The description is clear about what it does but does not explicitly differentiate from these siblings, so it's slightly above average.

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?

Implied usage: an agent would use this when they need group file system information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_group_root_files or get_group_files_by_folder, nor any exclusion criteria. Minimal guidance is provided.

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