game_get_nodes_in_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning what is returned (e.g., array of node references), whether the group must exist, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. There is no extraneous text; every word contributes to the purpose.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the return format, potential errors, or performance implications. Additional context would improve usability.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'group', with a description and examples. The description adds example group names which provides context, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get all nodes belonging to a specific group in the running game' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('nodes in a group'), clearly stating the action and object. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'game_manage_group' (which manages groups) and 'game_find_nodes_by_class' (which finds nodes by class).

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 implies usage for retrieving nodes by group but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'game_find_nodes_by_class' or 'game_manage_group'. No exclusion criteria or contexts are provided.

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