Get Group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description indicates what is returned. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or any side-effect guarantees.

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 immediately states the operation and result scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler 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 with one required parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It names the core content (members, balances, simplified debts) and is nearly complete; only explicit usage differentiation and auth/error context are absent.

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%, but the single parameter group_id is self-explanatory as an integer identifier. The description's phrase 'a group's details' reinforces the parameter's role without explicitly defining it. This is adequate but adds little beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a group's details'), and the key content included (members, balances, simplified debts). The singular 'a group' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_groups tool.

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 when a single group's details are needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of get_groups or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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