get_access_group

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds only that the response contains 'details', but does not describe response shape, error cases, or authorization needs; with robust annotations this is acceptable but not additive.

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?

Eight words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. For a one-parameter getter this is an appropriately minimal description.

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?

With one required parameter, a fully documented schema, and strong safety annotations, the tool is easy to invoke correctly. The only gap is that 'details' does not say which access-group fields are returned, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 fully documents the only parameter (group_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond 'specific access group', so it stays at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource: it retrieves a single access group by ID. It is clear, and 'specific' lightly distinguishes it from the plural list operation get_access_groups, though it never names that sibling.

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 phrase 'specific access group' implies the agent should call this when a group_id is already known, rather than to enumerate groups. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the primary routing decision to inference.

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