Get a group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and 'Body fields: none', but does not disclose response shape, authentication needs, or query behavior beyond what the schema provides. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action and endpoint. The body-fields note and reference URL add useful context without excessive verbosity. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it is somewhat fragmentary.

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, the description is minimally adequate given the annotations and schema. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the response contains or how embed affects the result, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema documents the query parameter behavior (embed, pagination) but leaves groupId without a description. The description's endpoint template confirms groupId is a path parameter but adds little semantic detail. The parameter is self-explanatory, keeping this at an adequate score.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a group') and includes the exact endpoint GET /api/xm/1/groups/{groupId}. It is clear enough to identify the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like xmatters_get_groups or group subresource endpoints.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that xmatters_get_groups lists groups, or that group members, recipients, and supervisors are separate endpoints. The agent must infer usage from the name and endpoint alone.

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