connects_group

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description is consistent with those. It adds useful context by clarifying that the tool does not support joins or survey submissions, which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about the scope of results.

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 conveys the core action and key exclusions without redundancy. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 output schema and annotations cover returns and safety, and the description clarifies single-collection reads. However, with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the lack of guidance on pagination, filtering via query, or how view interacts with the other parameters leaves a notable gap for an agent.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters, but it only loosely hints at the view concept with 'about page or one structured collection.' It does not explain group_id, limit, query, or offset, even though the schema provides no descriptive text for them.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource: a single group's about page or one structured collection. It clearly distinguishes this from list-oriented or joining tools by emphasizing 'no joins' and 'other writes', and the singular framing differentiates it from sibling tools like connects_groups.

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 reading a single group's content and explicitly excludes joins, survey submissions, and writes. However, it does not name any alternative sibling tools or state concrete conditions like 'use this when you need one group's data rather than a list of groups.'

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