Get group details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so 'Read-only' is redundant. However, the description adds a genuine behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations: the invite link is sensitive because anyone holding it can join the group. That is real risk information an agent needs before setting include_invite_link=true.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, the optional sensitive field with its risk, and the safety profile. Front-loaded with the return payload and nothing wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields, and it covers the one optional parameter with its default and risk. Missing are error behavior for invalid or non-member groups and any note on instance requirement, which keeps it short of complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so group_jid, instance_id and include_invite_link are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the security consequence of include_invite_link, but says nothing extra about instance_id resolution or JID format beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a group's name, description, participants, admins, creation date and settings'), which fully specifies what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling list_groups, so an agent must infer the difference between listing groups and reading one group's details.

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?

Usage is implied by the required group_jid and the returned fields, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_groups or when the invite link should be requested. No prerequisites (e.g. instance connection) are stated either.

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