yuque_get_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation ('Get a group') without mentioning return format, error handling (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. As a read operation, the absence of annotations makes the description insufficiently transparent.

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 easy to read and front-loaded with the action. However, the phrase 'or id' is an unnecessary addition that creates ambiguity, given the schema only has 'login'. Despite this, it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, with no fluff.

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 and lack of output schema, the description is still incomplete: it does not explain what the return value contains, what happens if the group is not found, or how this tool differs from the many sibling group-related tools (e.g., yuque_list_groups). The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 must compensate. It identifies 'login' as the lookup key and also mentions 'id', but the schema only supports 'login'. This adds minimal semantic value and introduces a discrepancy that could mislead the agent about the accepted parameters. No format or validation details are provided beyond the schema's minLength constraint.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('group') and indicates the lookup method ('by login or id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like yuque_list_groups (which lists all groups). However, the mention of 'id' is not reflected in the input schema, which only includes 'login', creating slight ambiguity about how the tool actually identifies a group.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it retrieves a single group by login, in contrast to list_groups for listing all, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. This is a simple tool, but the lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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