team_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It excellently discloses a critical behavioral trait: the default compact projection with trimmed rows and offline members folded into counts/digests, justified by concrete size measurements (170,331 and 69,660 chars) that would otherwise break the MCP ceiling. It also clarifies API route and Dashboard JSON are untouched. This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond what the schema conveys.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, then dives into implementation detail in the second paragraph. The detail is dense but earned — it explains WHY the compact projection exists with concrete data. Slightly long for a tool description but every sentence justifies itself; could be trimmed slightly, hence 4.

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?

This is a read/observation tool with an output schema present, complex projection logic, and strong rationale documented. The description fully explains the default behavior, the reasoning behind it (with real size measurements), the exception paths (offline members folding into digest), and explicitly clarifies that underlying API and Dashboard JSON are untouched. For a tool with this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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 schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds context to the fields parameter ('compact' means trimmed rows, not missing fields) and explains what includes_offline does (fold into count plus digest), which complements rather than repeats the schema. This adds genuine value on top of 100% schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns 'a team's status summary — team info + members + active tasks' and distinguishes it by explaining it hits /status rather than the bare team endpoint. It explicitly differentiates from sibling 'team_list' by noting the plain team row carries nothing actionable, making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 explains when this tool is appropriate (callers asking 'what is this team doing') and contrasts it with the bare team row. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the context and framing (addressing the limitation of the plain team endpoint) gives clear usage context.

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