scf_get_team

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'read — viewer role' aligns with that. It adds value beyond annotations by describing the specific outputs (full roster, advisory health warnings), which gives the agent a clearer expectation of what the call returns. No contradictions.

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, concise sentence that packs purpose, output, and permission into an efficient, front-loaded statement. No redundant words or tangential details.

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 simple get operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key context: it returns the full roster and health warnings, and it is read-only. It does not enumerate every field in the response, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%: both org_id and team_id have descriptions explaining how to obtain them (from scf_list_organizations and scf_list_teams respectively). The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (Get), a specific resource (one team), and the key output: full roster and advisory health warnings. It also notes the read-only viewer role, which distinguishes it from mutation tools like scf_update_team and from the plural list tool scf_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 usage context: use it when you need a single team's roster and health warnings, not for listing or updating. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like scf_list_teams or scf_update_team, so it falls short of the explicit guidance required for a 5.

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