get_service_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is a read operation ('Get detailed information') and outlines the return structure including status and error handling. It does not contradict any annotations, and the behavior is transparent for a get tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no enums, and an output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return format in detail, specifying keys like status, group, and message. No critical information is missing for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaningful context: 'adom: ADOM name' and 'name: Service group name'. This goes beyond the bare property names and clarifies the expected values, providing high value.

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 'Get detailed information about a service group.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('service group'). Among sibling tools, there are other get_* tools and list_service_groups, but this one is distinct in that it retrieves details for a single group by name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_service_groups or get_service. It lacks explicit context for usage, such as prerequisites or mention of alternative tools for listing or retrieving other objects.

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