get_team

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait beyond the schema — that the `teams:manage` permission is required — and the GET verb implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about the response shape, error/404 behavior, or whether the permission scope is broader than a read strictly needs.

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?

It is short and the key facts (operation, permission, endpoint) come first. The trailing 'Tags: Teams' line is API-doc boilerplate that adds nothing for an agent, but the overall footprint is small and there is no redundant prose.

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 one-parameter read of a single resource with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it returns conceptually, the endpoint, and the permission gate. The missing piece is failure behavior and any relationship to the list-level or mutation siblings, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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% for the single `id` path parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only echoes it via the endpoint template '{id}' and adds no format, source, or validation details beyond what the schema states.

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 pairs the verb 'Get' with the resource 'Team' and disambiguates the scope with the endpoint 'GET /api/v1/teams/{id}', making clear it fetches a single team by id rather than a list. It stops short of naming any sibling (e.g. update_team, delete_team) as a contrast, so differentiation is only implicit through the HTTP verb.

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 only usage-relevant statement is the permission requirement. There is no guidance on when to call this versus update_team/delete_team, no mention of preconditions such as needing a valid team id from a prior list call, and no note on behavior when the team does not exist.

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