knowbe4_groups_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It indicates this is a read/retrieval operation ('Get detailed information'), which correctly signals a safe, non-destructive action. It does not describe pagination, response format, or error behavior (e.g., 404 for nonexistent group), but for a simple read-by-ID tool, the safety profile is adequately conveyed.

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 efficient sentence that states the purpose and the key returned fields in under 20 words. No filler or repetition. Could arguably note the tool contrasts with the list variant, but as written it is appropriately compact.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It names the key return values (risk score, member count) which helps the agent understand result composition. However, it doesn't clarify how this differs from knowbe4_groups_members (which presumably returns just members), and given the large sibling set, slightly more differentiation context would help.

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 coverage is 100% with a single group_id parameter described as 'The group ID to retrieve,' which is clear. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'retrieve by ID' — it doesn't clarify the ID format (numeric confirmed by schema type) or whether this is a global or account-scoped ID, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed information about a specific KnowBe4 group'), and key fields ('risk score and member count'). It differentiates from siblings by noting it retrieves by ID, versus knowbe4_groups_list which presumably lists groups. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast against knowbe4_groups_members.

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 usage ('by ID') which helps distinguish from list operations, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. An agent can infer this is the targeted single-record lookup counterpart to knowbe4_groups_list, but no alternatives are named and no use cases are described.

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