get_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral details: returns expression rules and up to 50 effective VirtualMachine members. It discloses the 50-member limit, which is valuable beyond 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, using only 4 lines with a clear header and argument section. It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to scan.

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 read tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return content (expression rules, up to 50 members). Annotations cover safety and idempotency. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions or handling non-existent groups, but these are not critical for tool selection.

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 explicitly documents both parameters: 'group_id' with an example ('web-tier-vms') and 'target' as optional NSX Manager target. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and required indicators.

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 starts with '[READ]' and clearly states 'Get details of a security group including membership criteria and effective members.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'security group' are explicit, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_groups' (which lists groups) and 'create_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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving specific group details, but there is no mention of when-not to use it or alternative tools for listing groups. The purpose is clear, but usage context is implicit.

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