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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions authentication context ('current user's company') which is valuable, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or response format. The description adds some context but leaves gaps in 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?

The description is perfectly concise with two clear sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's zero wasted text and it's effectively front-loaded.

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 tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for basic usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context about what the response contains or error conditions. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents the companyId parameter. The description adds meaningful context about the default behavior when the parameter is omitted, which goes beyond the schema's description. This provides valuable semantic understanding of parameter usage.

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 specific action ('Get a company from Terros') and resource ('company'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like terros_get_current_user or terros_get_team. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Omit companyId to get the current user's company.' This gives clear context on parameter usage and distinguishes it from alternatives like terros_list_teams or terros_list_users, which handle collections rather than single entities.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'authenticated user' implying authentication is needed, but doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves user data access.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 tool's complexity (accessing user profile data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the profile includes, how authentication works, or potential errors, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable 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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline score of 4 reflects that it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('authenticated user's own profile from Terros'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'terros_get_user' which might fetch other users' profiles, leaving room for potential confusion.

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 such as 'terros_get_user' for other users or 'terros_get_company' for company data. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.

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

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 mentions what data is included (child teams and members), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get a Terros team by ID') and adds essential detail ('including child teams and members') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and data included, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'teamId' documented in the schema as 'Team ID (e.g. Team:abc123)'. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a Terros team by ID', specifying it includes child teams and members. It distinguishes from 'terros_list_teams' by focusing on a single team retrieval, but does not explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools like 'terros_get_company' or 'terros_get_user' in terms of scope or data 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'terros_list_teams' for multiple teams or 'terros_get_company' for company-level data. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool fetches a user but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if user not found), rate limits, or response format. This leaves gaps for a read operation with no structured safety hints.

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 front-loads the purpose and parameter usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only implied) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address key aspects like return values or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'userId' documented as accepting User ID, email, or clientUserId. The description repeats this information verbatim, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a Terros user'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'terros_get_company' or 'terros_list_users' by focusing on retrieving a single user, but does not explicitly contrast with 'terros_get_current_user' (which might fetch the authenticated user).

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?

Usage is implied by the description's focus on retrieving a user via identifiers, suggesting it's for single-user lookups. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'terros_list_users' (for multiple users) or 'terros_get_current_user' (for self), and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation with filtering, but doesn't mention whether it's paginated, what permissions are required, rate limits, or the format of returned data. For a list 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 gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more structure if it included usage guidance or behavioral context.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included), whether results are paginated, or any authentication requirements. The agent would need to guess about these important contextual elements.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'company or archived status' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't add any semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('teams in the Terros workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'terros_get_team' (which likely retrieves a single team) or 'terros_list_users' (which lists users instead of teams), missing the opportunity for full sibling differentiation.

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 mentions filtering capabilities ('Filter by company or archived status') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose this over 'terros_get_team' for single-team retrieval or how it relates to other list operations like 'terros_list_users', leaving the agent without usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes filtering capabilities but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, the format of returned data, or any rate limits. For a list operation 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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that immediately states the core purpose and enumerates the filter options without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and efficiently communicates the tool's capabilities.

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 list operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (array of user objects? what fields?), doesn't mention pagination behavior for large result sets, and provides no information about authentication requirements or error conditions. With no annotations to fill these gaps, the description leaves the agent with incomplete operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the filter options ('Filter by company, team, specific user IDs, or archived status'), which helps the agent understand the parameter categories at a glance, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('users in the Terros workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like terros_get_user (singular) by indicating it lists multiple users, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like terros_list_teams beyond the resource type.

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 through the filter options it mentions (company, team, user IDs, archived status), suggesting when this tool would be appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like terros_get_user for single users or terros_list_teams for team listings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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