get_group

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying that up to 50 effective VirtualMachine members are returned, along with expression rules. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, uses clear sections ([READ], Args:), and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language.

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 simple get operation, the description covers the return content and parameters adequately. Minor omission: what happens if the group does not exist (error handling), but annotations and context signals are sufficient for typical use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: it provides an example for 'group_id' and explains 'target' as an optional NSX Manager target name, giving meaningful context beyond the schema titles.

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 it gets details of a security group, specifying the returned data (membership criteria, effective members, expression rules). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_groups' by emphasizing single-group retrieval, and includes a '[READ]' prefix for clarity.

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 use when needing specific group details, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_groups' or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. No alternatives are mentioned.

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