teramind_get_department

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context. It conveys that the operation is a read ('Get') and that it returns 'full detail,' but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects. For a simple lookup this is minimally viable but not richly disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated in a compact follow-up sentence.

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 single-parameter, single-department lookup, the description plus schema cover the essential details: what is fetched and where the input ID comes from. The absence of an output schema makes 'full detail' somewhat vague, but the low complexity keeps this from being a significant gap.

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%, and the schema already documents department_id and its source. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get full detail for a single department,' which clearly distinguishes it from list-type siblings like teramind_list_departments. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and what it operates on.

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 explicitly states that a department ID from teramind_list_departments is required, which gives the agent a clear prerequisite and source for the ID. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use this tool, but the 'single department' qualifier and the requirement wording imply the appropriate context.

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