detail_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read operation, but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Get a single team by ID'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage.

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 the simple single-parameter input schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details like authentication needs, error handling, or output format. For a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally provide more context about what 'Get' entails beyond just the action.

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%, with the single parameter 'teamId' fully documented in the schema including its type, pattern, and requirement. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what a team ID represents or where to find it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a single team by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from list_teams by specifying retrieval of a single team rather than multiple teams. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like get_user or list_team_members, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use detail_team versus list_teams, get_user, or list_team_members, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a team ID. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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