get_engine_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool 'gets detailed information,' but does not describe what information is included, whether it is read-only, any required permissions, error conditions, or response format. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. There is no redundant wording or extraneous details. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, nor does it clarify return format or behavior. For a tool that purportedly returns detailed information, some elaboration on the response would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, engine_group_id, providing its type and meaning. The description adds no extra semantic information. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and there is no additional value from the tool description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific engine group.' The verb 'get' and resource 'engine group' are specific, and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from list operations like list_engine_groups. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_engine_groups or get_engine. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided. The description offers no usage direction beyond the basic action.

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