github_enterprise_teams_get

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, error handling, or rate limits. It only states the action, leaving the agent uninformed about important behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, but this brevity results in under-specification. Important details are omitted, making it insufficient for effective tool selection.

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 the lack of output schema and simple parameters, the description should include details about return values or prerequisites. It fails to provide a complete picture, leaving the agent with inadequate information.

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% with descriptions that simply repeat parameter names (enterprise, team_slug). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving the baseline score.

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 indicates the verb 'Get' and the resource 'enterprise team', distinguishing it from the sibling 'list' tool. However, it could be more specific about what data is retrieved (e.g., team details, members).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_enterprise_teams_list or github_teams_get_by_name. The description lacks any usage context.

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