connects_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds useful exclusion context ('no joins, survey submissions or other writes') that matches and slightly extends the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 one concise sentence, front-loads the key verb 'Read', and avoids filler. The phrase 'one structured collection' is somewhat vague, and 'no joins' reads awkwardly, but overall it is an efficient, well-sized description.

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, enum values, defaults, and annotations fill many gaps, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. Still, it lacks explicit guidance for choosing this tool over siblings and leaves parameter meanings to inference, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not compensate for this gap. It makes only an indirect reference to the 'view' parameter by mentioning 'about page or one structured collection', and gives no guidance on group_id, limit, offset, or query semantics.

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 identifies a read action on a group resource ('Read a group's about page or one structured collection') and explicitly distinguishes it from write operations. It could be more precise by naming the available collection views or differentiating itself from connects_groups, but the core purpose is clear.

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 this tool is for read-only group data access and states what it does not do ('no joins, survey submissions or other writes'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide conditions for when to choose connects_groups, connects_events, or other related tools.

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