team_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Show', 'verify') and lists the exact output fields. It does not mention potential errors, permissions, or side effects, but for a simple health-check tool this is adequate.

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 exactly two sentences, it is front-loaded with the primary purpose and provides an actionable usage suggestion in the second sentence. Every word adds value and there is no fluff.

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 dependency-free, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully captures its purpose, output, and appropriate timing relative to the sibling team_sync. It is simple, complete, and self-contained.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter specifics and doesn't add redundant information about the empty schema.

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 verb ('Show') and the resource ('team sync health'), specifying the exact data displayed (last sync time, uncommitted changes, conflict count, configured remote URL). It distinguishes itself from server-level tools like team_sync by focusing on status/health rather than execution.

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 explicitly says 'before or after a team_sync call' and frames the tool as a way to 'verify the sync backend is connected and working'. This provides clear context for when to use it relative to sibling tools, but it does not explicitly mention scenarios when it should not be used or alternatives beyond team_sync.

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