get_team_by_name

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 only states 'Get detailed information', without disclosing what 'detailed' includes, potential errors (e.g., not found), response shape, or edge cases like duplicate names. The read-only behavior is implied by 'get' but not explicitly detailed.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and object. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about uniqueness of team names, error behavior, and its relationship to sibling tools. It is complete enough for basic invocation but leaves uncertainty.

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%, and the description adds no information beyond the word 'name'. It does not specify format, exact vs fuzzy matching, or case sensitivity. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the description provides no additional semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('team'), and specifies the lookup key ('by name'). It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team' (likely ID-based) or 'search_team' (likely partial-match).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for exact-name lookup or that 'search_team' should be used for partial matches. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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