get_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral traits beyond that: the optional wait-for-progress behavior and the optional transcript inclusion, both of which materially change how the call behaves. It does not conflict with annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then the two optional modifiers. Every part earns its place.

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 read-only tool with three parameters, the description covers all semantic options in one sentence. There is no output schema, so a tiny bit more detail about the response shape would help, but the core behavior and parameters are complete enough for an agent to 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 property descriptions are completely absent (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It explicitly maps wait_ms to 'wait for progress' and include_transcript to 'include transcript', adding meaning beyond the raw schema. team_id is only implied by 'a multi-agent team', and no format details are given, keeping this from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb 'Read' with a singular resource 'a multi-agent team', and names two optional behaviors (wait for progress, include transcript) that clarify what the tool returns. The title 'Read Antigravity team' reinforces it, and the contrast with sibling list_teams is clear.

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 when you need to read one team and optionally wait or fetch the transcript, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_teams, team_dashboard, or other team-related tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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