get_internal_squads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's '[READ] GET /api/internal-squads/' merely restates that same read-only fact rather than adding context. It says nothing about return shape, pagination, or result size for what could be a large list.

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?

It is a single short line with the operation front-loaded, so there is no wasted prose. The bracketed method and raw endpoint add little for an agent but cost minimal space.

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 no-arg list tool with no output schema and safety already covered by annotations, this is minimally viable. However, it never clarifies what an 'internal squad' is or what the list contains, which matters given the many squad-related siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter-related gap exists.

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 states a specific verb ('Get all') and resource ('internal squads'), making the operation instantly identifiable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_internal_squad, though it never names it explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_internal_squad, get_internal_squad_usage, and get_internal_squad_accessible_nodes in the list, the agent gets no signal about which to pick for a list vs. detail vs. usage query.

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