get_group_root_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only action, but the description discloses no side-effect safety, auth/permissions, list contents, pagination, or whether the root list includes subfolders. Behavioral information beyond the superficial verb is absent.

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, short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose, making it 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?

For a one-parameter read-only list tool, this description is mostly sufficient, but the lack of an output schema and annotations leaves the agent guessing about the returned list's exact shape. It also does not disambiguate from sibling file tools, which is relevant in the broader tool set.

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 documents the only parameter group_id with 100% coverage. The description itself adds no meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 a specific verb and resource: get the file list at the group's root directory. The 'root' qualifier sets it apart contextually from sibling tools like get_group_files_by_folder, though it does not explicitly name a sibling. The meaning 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 select this tool over alternatives such as get_group_files_by_folder or get_group_file_system_info. The 'root directory' wording provides only an implicit hint; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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