Get Team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned. For a simple GET-by-ID, no further behavioral caveats (pagination, auth) are necessary.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Get details for a team by GID'). No wasted words or repetition of schema content.

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 get-by-ID tool with rich annotations and complete schema, the description fully covers purpose, return values, and sibling alternative. No output schema means the listed return fields serve as adequate context.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, with detailed descriptions for team_gid and opt_fields. The description reinforces 'by GID' but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

States exactly what it does: 'Get details for a team by GID' and explicitly lists the return fields (gid, name, description, organization). It distinguishes itself from the sibling asana_get_teams_for_workspace by noting that the sibling is for finding GIDs, not retrieving team details.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use asana_get_teams_for_workspace to find team GIDs.' This tells the agent when to use the alternative, and implicitly conveys that this tool requires an existing team GID to be useful.

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