get_user_group

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation. The description does not add behavioral traits beyond that. It does not disclose any potential errors, return format, or required permissions, but the annotation adequately covers the safety aspect.

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 extremely concise, using only six words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity. There is no extraneous 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations), the description is largely complete. It could mention that the tool returns the user group object or what happens if the ID does not exist, but for a basic retrieval, it is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single required parameter (usergroupId). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond 'by ID', which is already implied by the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 that the tool retrieves a single user group by its ID. It uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'user group', which aligns well with the tool name. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_user_groups by implying singular retrieval with 'single', it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain that this tool is for retrieving a specific group by ID, while list_user_groups would be used to fetch all groups. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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