ateam_show_solution_minimal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses exactly which fields are included and which are omitted (deployed metadata, handoffs, grants, ui_plugins, validation results), setting expectations for output. Minor gap: no mention of read-only nature or error behavior, but 'Show' and 'inspection' imply non-mutating.

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 compact and information-dense, front-loading purpose and field list. The cryptic reference to 'Phase 9 of the strip' adds little for an outside agent and could be removed.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns and what it omits. It lacks explicit return formatting or error cases, but for a minimal-inspection tool this is sufficient.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (solution_id with description 'The solution ID'). The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Show') with a specific resource ('minimal authoring view of a solution') and enumerates exact fields included, clearly distinguishing it from the fuller solution tools like ateam_get_solution.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for fast inspection without the verbose fields,' clearly indicating the intended scenario. It also lists what is skipped, providing an implicit exclusion; however, it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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