get_team_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the 'Read-only' trait, which is useful, and lists the data fields returned. It does not mention any latency, authentication, or staleness definition, but for a simple read-only tool this is reasonably transparent, though not rich.

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, focused sentence followed by a two-word behavioral note. It front-loads the key purpose and contains zero filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what data it returns and that it has no side effects. The output schema presumably details the return structure, so nothing critical is missing given the tool's low complexity.

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, and the schema shows this. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and since the description correctly implies no inputs are needed, it earns that baseline without needing to explain parameter details.

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 tool reports everyone's current task, progress percentage, blockers, and staleness. It specifies a concrete resource (team status) and the fields shown, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like team_context, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 implies usage: call this to see the team's current status. However, it does not state when to prefer this over siblings like team_context or recent_activity, nor any explicit alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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