ateam_show_solution_minimal

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It fully discloses what is included (name, description, style, routing_mode, identity_mode, skill ids, connector ids) and what is skipped (deployed metadata, handoffs, grants, ui_plugins, validation results). This provides complete behavioral transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word adds value, no fluff. Efficient and clear.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns and what it skips, covering all necessary context for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's 'The solution ID', which is adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Description clearly states the tool shows the minimal authoring view of a solution, listing exactly which fields are included and excluded. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing minimal vs verbose, and explicitly mentions the stripped fields.

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?

Description says 'Use this for fast inspection without the verbose fields', providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ateam_get_solution or ateam_show_skill_minimal, though the minimal vs verbose distinction is implied.

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