tempo_get_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of what happens on missing id, error handling, or response shape. For a simple get-by-id tool, this is adequate but not enriching; it does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately minimal for the tool's simplicity.

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 get-by-id tool with two well-documented parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete. It does not explicitly state the return value (the team object), but that is implicit in the verb 'Retrieve'. The absence of an output schema is not critical here because the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 both id and view fully documented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single Tempo team') and identifies the primary key ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tempo_get_teams (plural, likely a list) through singular/plural usage, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention tempo_get_teams for listing, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The context is implied only by the tool name and singular resource, not explicit.

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