团队工作台

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses a session-memory side effect and clarifies the correlation is not a native Codex thread ID, but it never says what "open" operationally does or returns.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. The middle sentence is dense and hard to parse ("remember that selection if the host supplies anonymous session metadata"), and the thread-ID disclaimer arrives without setup.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation-flagged tool, the description should say more about what opening produces and how the panel state relates to boards created by team_create_board. It covers the identity caveat but leaves the operational result unexplained.

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 carry the parameter, and it does explain boardId's semantics (remember the selection) plus the empty-object reopen case. However it never says where a boardId comes from or its format, and the "anonymous session metadata" phrasing is vague.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Open the persistent shared task board and team map." An agent understands what the tool does, but there is no differentiation from siblings such as team_snapshot or team_create_board, and "team map" is never explained.

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 statement of when to call this versus team_snapshot, team_create_board, or team_bind_session. The only routing help is the negative "Does not discover or control agents," which excludes one use case but does not positively guide selection.

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