management_groups_get_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation with the verb 'Get,' but it does not describe what happens when the ID does not exist, whether any authorization is required, or what the response shape looks like. This is minimally acceptable for a simple get-by-id 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the operation and the identifier type without any wasted words. It is concise without being under-specified.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: an agent knows what to pass and what the tool returns conceptually. A small gap remains because there is no guidance about error cases or the distinction from by-name lookup, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 100%: the only parameter, 'id', is described as 'Integer ID' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Get a Management Group by integer ID.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like management_groups_get_by_name and management_groups_search because it specifies the lookup key as an integer ID. This is a model of clarity for a get-by-id operation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of management_groups_get_by_name or management_groups_search. However, the phrase 'by integer ID' implies the appropriate use case: when the caller has an integer ID available. This counts as implied usage rather than explicit instructions.

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