sigma_get_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. However, the description adds nothing beyond the bare action—no mention of what 'details' include, whether member information is returned, or any rate/permission caveats. Minimal extra value over 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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It does not waste words, but it also fails to provide useful context that would make it 'appropriately sized' for a tool with many siblings and a bare schema.

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?

While this is a simple read-only get operation with an output schema, the description omits any disambiguation from sigma_list_teams, does not explain what fields are returned, and lacks prerequisites or error behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the lack of usage context and parameter guidance leaves the description incomplete.

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 has 1 required parameter, team_id, with no description (schema description coverage 0%). The description does not explain the format or meaning of team_id beyond its name. For a single self-explanatory parameter, the lack of compensation is somewhat mitigated, but the description still adds no semantics.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get team details' for a specific team. It is distinct from sibling tools like sigma_list_teams, which lists all teams, but the description does not explicitly contrast them or mention the team_id parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that sigma_list_teams is for listing all teams or that other team-related tools exist for modifications. The usage context is implied only by the name and description.

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