getUserGroup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key traits: the operation is read-only (explicitly marked '[READ-ONLY]'), requires specific authorization ('users:read' scope), and corresponds to a specific API endpoint (GET /api/users/v1/user-groups/{userGroupId}). This covers safety, permissions, and technical context adequately for a read 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 highly concise and front-loaded, with all essential information in one sentence: purpose, API correspondence, authorization requirement, and read-only nature. Every element earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse and understand.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, authorization, and behavioral traits. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap, as the description doesn't detail return values, but this is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool where the response is implied by the purpose.

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%, with the single parameter 'userGroupId' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the user group to retrieve'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation completely.

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 verb ('Gets details about') and resource ('a specific user group'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listUserGroups' by specifying retrieval of a single group rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'getUserGroupUsers', which is a related but distinct 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?

The description implies usage context by mentioning the required scope ('users:read') and specifying retrieval of a 'specific' user group, suggesting it's for detailed lookup rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listUserGroups' for bulk retrieval or 'getUserGroupUsers' for group membership details, leaving some ambiguity.

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