sw_get_group

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it. However, the description adds little behavioral detail beyond mentioning the returned data; it does not disclose response size considerations, error behavior, or other operational traits.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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-only single-group retrieval tool, the description plus the fully documented input schema gives enough context to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description naming the returned content, though explicit guidance about alternatives would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the 'id' and 'view' parameters. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so 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 ('details of a single Splitwise group'), and key contents ('all members and balances'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sw_list_groups by emphasizing a single 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 implies it is for retrieving one group, which differentiates it from sw_list_groups, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is clear only by inference from the wording.

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