getTeam

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description provides no additional information about error handling, response format, or behavior when the team is not found. It adds little beyond what the name already conveys.

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 with zero filler. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description is minimally viable. However, since there is no output schema or annotations, a little more context about the return value or error behavior would improve completeness. As is, it leaves some ambiguity about what the response contains.

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% — the 'id' parameter is described as 'Team ID'. The description says 'by ID', which aligns but does not add extra semantic depth. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 'Get a team by ID' clearly states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('team'), and scope ('by ID'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like listTeams (retrieve all teams), createTeam, and updateTeam.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a team ID and need a single team. Alternatives are not explicitly named, but the context is obvious given the tool's name and the sibling list.

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