appwrite_get_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but fails to state read-only safety, authentication requirements, rate limiting, or cache behavior. While 'Get' implies retrieval, explicit behavioral traits (e.g., 'returns null if not found' vs 'throws error') are absent.

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 single sentence is appropriately brief, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata that wastes front-loaded space without aiding agent comprehension. Otherwise efficient structure.

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 simple retrieval operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core operation but leaves significant gaps: undocumented 'site' parameter, no mention of return structure, and no differentiation from appwrite_get_team_prefs. Sufficient for basic invocation but incomplete for robust agent decision-making.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It implicitly documents 'team_id' via 'by ID', but provides no context for the 'site' parameter—critical for multi-tenant Appwrite environments where 'site' likely specifies the project/instance. Without schema or description coverage for 'site', the agent lacks guidance on valid values.

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 (Get) with resource (team) and scope qualifier (by ID), distinguishing it from siblings like appwrite_list_teams (plural) and appwrite_update_team. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without semantic value, and 'details' is vague regarding what specific team properties are returned.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this single-record lookup versus appwrite_list_teams (for browsing/searching) or appwrite_get_team_prefs (for configuration). The 'by ID' phrase implies usage but does not state prerequisites like 'use when you have a specific team ID' or mention fallback alternatives.

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