get_permission_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'including its members' which describes the return content rather than a behavioral trait. It does not contradict annotations and adds a small amount of context, but beyond that there is no mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a parameter hint. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every element is useful. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple (two parameters, no output schema, annotations cover safety), and the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on where to obtain group_id (e.g., from list_permission_groups) and does not mention any potential errors or return format. Given the zero-coverage schema, the description should provide more context for both parameters to be fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains workspace_id by pointing to list_workspaces(), but leaves group_id completely unexplained. An agent would need to infer its meaning from the tool name. This is only partial compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('permission group by ID') and adds 'including its members' which specifies the scope of the result. It is distinct from list_permission_groups which would retrieve multiple groups, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings without ambiguity.

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 gives a clear purpose but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_permission_groups or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It does offer a useful hint for obtaining workspace_id from list_workspaces(), but this is about parameter sourcing, not usage selection. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it, but explicit exclusion guidance is missing.

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