collaboration_team

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

No annotations provided; description adds 'read-only' as a behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or response behavior, which the description should address given no 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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Purpose and key info (read-only) are front-loaded. Perfectly concise for a simple fetch tool.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool: states what it does and how to identify the team. Lacks description of return format or possible errors, which would be helpful given no output schema. Not incomplete but could be better.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters beyond mentioning 'slug'. It does not clarify that 'teamSlug' is the slug or describe 'org', leaving agents to infer from context.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Fetch', resource 'one team', scope 'in an organization', and identifier 'by slug'. Explicitly mentions 'read-only', distinguishing it from sibling tools like collaboration_teams (list) or modification tools.

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?

Implies usage when fetching a specific team by slug. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not conditions, but context from sibling tool names makes the differentiation clear.

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