get_group

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that results include current members, that group_name is case-insensitive, and that lookup is scoped to the caller's groups. It does not state precedence when both parameters are supplied, but this is a minor gap given the simple read-only operation.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is concise and directly actionable.

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 low complexity, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only notable missing piece is behavior when both group_id and group_name are provided or when both are omitted, which could be clarified.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining group_id as an exact lookup and group_name as a case-insensitive substring match. It does not specify behavior when both parameters are provided or when neither is provided, but it does assign meaningful semantics to both 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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single group's detail, including its current members.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from list_groups and other sibling operations that operate on different entities.

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 clearly explains the two lookup modes and the scope of group_name lookup, which tells an agent how to use the tool correctly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool over list_groups or manage_group_members.

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