Ucontrol Read Umap Team Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail—omitting the name returns all records—which is not present in annotations. It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but the bar is lower given the 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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately cover the key parameter behavior. No wasted words.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the core function and the main parameter behavior, though it could mention what fields are in the details or any pagination behavior. The strong annotations reduce the need for additional safety 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 provides no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining that omitting it returns all records. This adds concrete meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify the exact format or expected value of the name.

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 tool reads team details from the uMap API, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming 'team' as the resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like ucontrol_read_umap_model_details.

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 by defining the action, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer from the resource name.

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