get_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. It only states 'Get details', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as required permissions, error behavior when the team_id is invalid, or what 'details' includes. This is minimal disclosure beyond the purpose itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 one-parameter get tool, the description is adequate but leaves 'details' undefined. Since there is no output schema, the description is the only source for what the response contains, and 'details' is vague. Still, the tool's simplicity and sibling context provide enough for basic use.

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 input schema fully describes team_id with 'The ID of the team (workspace)', giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, 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 clearly states 'Get details of a single ClickUp team/workspace' – a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a single team/workspace'). The word 'single' distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_teams' (plural), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for a single team by saying 'a single', contrasting with get_teams which fetches all teams. It gives enough context for an agent to choose this tool over the plural variant, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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