get_user_team_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return payload includes is_member, is_admin, is_guest, and state. Implicitly a read operation with no side effects. Could be more explicit about permissions, but 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?

Description is concise with clear arg/returns sections. Could be slightly shorter but no unnecessary content. Well-structured for an AI agent to parse.

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?

With output schema present, return type is sufficiently described. No annotations, but description covers behavior and parameters. A mention that this is a read-only operation would improve completeness, but overall solid.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds meaning: user_id is the ID to check, team_id is optional and if null returns all teams. This compensates for the schema gap.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a user's team status (member, admin, guest, or not in team). Verb 'Get' and resource 'user's status in teams' are explicit. Distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on chat/message 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?

Describes the optional team_id parameter: if provided, checks status in specific team; if not, returns status in all teams. Provides clear context on when to use each variant. No explicit when-not-to-use but not needed for this straightforward tool.

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