Get Team Blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns a structure and members, but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, any authorization needs, or potential side effects. As a GET-like tool, more transparency about its safety would be beneficial.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks details on the return format (e.g., is the blueprint a string, object?). Users might need to infer the output structure.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It mentions 'for a team' but does not explain the 'team_id' parameter beyond its existence. No format, examples, or constraints are given, leaving the agent with minimal semantic context.

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 tool returns the Mermaid structure and members for a team. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and specifies the resource ('team blueprint'). Among siblings like 'add_team_member', 'create_team', etc., this tool is clearly distinguished as a retrieval operation.

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 one needs the team's blueprint, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'get_team_kpi' or 'get_organization'). No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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