team_init

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that it configures team.json and sets up a git repo, and importantly notes 'call once', implying non-idempotency. However, it doesn't state whether re-invocation is destructive, what happens if files already exist, or any auth/permission requirements—leaving open questions about side effects.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It leads with the core action, then provides operational details, and ends with a precise usage instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 an initialization tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, and when. It doesn't fully explain post-initialization state or how to verify success, but it is sufficient for a one-time setup operation given the sibling 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 all three parameters (branch, remote, backend). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—only adding the context that the remote URL is received from a teammate. This meets the baseline 3 for high 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Initialize a sync backend for team memory sharing' and specifies the resource (team.json and git repository). It distinguishes from siblings like team_sync and team_status by focusing on initial setup rather than ongoing operations.

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 clear context for when to call: 'Call once per developer workstation after receiving the shared remote URL from a teammate.' This gives a strong usage frame, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives like team_sync, so it stops short of a 5.

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