team_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It states the tool will '智能分配任务并互相协作' (intelligently assign tasks and collaborate), but lacks details on side effects, permissions, output format, or internal mechanics. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 in Chinese that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundant information and is perfectly concise for the given complexity.

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?

The tool orchestrates multiple AI agents and likely has complex behavior, but the description lacks details on return values, error handling, or what the user receives. No output schema is provided, and the description does not address these gaps, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, with both parameters ('task' and 'context') having adequate descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond repeating the schema, so the baseline score 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 tool's purpose: '让 AI 开发团队协作完成任务' (let the AI development team collaborate to complete tasks). It specifies the team composition (front-end, back-end, QA) and behavior (intelligent task allocation, collaboration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fix_bug' or 'code_review' which focus on specific tasks.

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 the tool is for multi-expert collaboration tasks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it, relying on the context of sibling tools for differentiation.

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