cor_get_team

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and mentions returned data (team name, metadata), but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or constraints. The description is minimal and lacks details about the 'associated metadata'.

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: two short sentences (bilingual) that front-load the purpose and key output information. Every word serves a purpose, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description states it returns team name and metadata, but 'metadata' is vague. Given the absence of output schema, the description should be more explicit about the return structure. It is adequate but not thorough.

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% (one parameter with description 'ID del equipo / Team ID'). The description adds that the tool retrieves details by ID, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema documentation.

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 'Get', the resource 'COR team details', and the method 'by ID'. It includes bilingual text and explicitly mentions the scope of details: team name and associated metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cor_list_teams.

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 use when a specific team ID is known, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use cor_list_teams to find an ID first). No 'when not to use' or alternative mentions. The context is clear but not fully developed.

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