Get a group's supervisors

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 meaningful operational context beyond annotations: the HTTP method (GET), the exact endpoint, and the explicit note that no body fields are required, which prevents an agent from fabricating a request body. The reference link allows deeper lookup.

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?

Four short segments — purpose, endpoint, body note, reference — with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every remaining segment adds distinct value an agent would need to make the call correctly.

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 read-only GET with strong annotations and a well-documented query schema, the description is nearly complete: it provides the endpoint, confirms no body is required, and links to official documentation. The only gap is the lack of return-value shape, but no output schema exists and the tool name adequately implies the response is the group's supervisors.

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 50%: the query object is already well described in the schema (comma-joined arrays, explicit offset/limit pagination, results not auto-combined), but path.groupId has no schema description. The description partially compensates by embedding {groupId} in the endpoint template, making its role as a path parameter clear, though it does not explain what groupId refers to or how to obtain it.

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's supervisors', with the full endpoint path clarifying scope. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling xmatters_get_a_person_39_s_supervisors because it is explicitly scoped to groups, and from xmatters_get_group_members because it targets supervisors rather than members.

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 usage context is implied: call this when you need the supervisors of a specific group and have a groupId. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as xmatters_get_a_person_39_s_supervisors for person-based lookups or xmatters_get_group_members for membership data.

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