get_group

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description reveals crucial behaviors: member_count is the real size while members.items is only a capped sample of 50, the truncated flag indicates more items, and membership changes may take seconds to propagate. This adds significant context not encoded in annotations or schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with '[READ]' and a clear summary. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, necessary detail (return structure, truncation, usage context, timing). There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the return object contains, how to interpret the truncated members list, and the relationship between member_count and members.items. It also covers the prerequisite of using list_groups and the eventual consistency behavior, making it fully self-sufficient 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?

Even though the schema has no descriptions for the parameters, the 'Args' section provides meaningful examples for group_id ('web-tier-vms') and clarifies that target is an optional NSX Manager target. This enriches the bare schema definitions with practical context and default behavior.

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 opens with '[READ] Get details of a security group including membership criteria and effective members,' clearly stating the verb (get), resource (security group), and the specific details returned. It differentiates itself from siblings like list_groups (which narrows to one id) and get_dfw_policy (a different resource type).

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use it once list_groups has narrowed to one id,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming the alternative (list_groups). It also adds a key temporal caveat about NSX evaluation delays, helping the agent know what to expect when using it in a workflow.

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