get_group_by_name

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile of this read operation. The description adds only the scope of the lookup ('specific consumer group') and does not disclose not-found behavior, error handling, or return shape, but it does not contradict the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the action and resource compactly without wasted words.

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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter read operation with full schema descriptions and read-only annotations, so basic invocation is adequately covered. However, because there is no output schema, the vague term 'details' leaves the return payload unspecified, and the description does not mention error behavior or environment/auth prerequisites.

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?

Both parameters, cluster and groupName, are required and have clear schema descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific consumer group'), making the tool's core purpose obvious. It is distinguishable from get_groups because it targets one named group, but it does not explicitly separate it from related get_group_* tools such as get_group_offsets or get_group_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_groups or the other get_group_* tools. The word 'specific' implies a by-name lookup, but the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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