azdo_get_team

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 but fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned details. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 at just three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place, but the description is arguably too sparse for effective tool use.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how to interpret the 'team_id' (e.g., whether it accepts names or UUIDs), or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured team data, this leaves the agent guessing about output format and usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'AzDO org name'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'team_id' must belong to the specified 'project' and 'organization') or provide examples. 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 'Get team details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'azdo_get_team'. It lacks specificity about what 'details' includes (e.g., team metadata, members, settings) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'azdo_list_teams' or 'azdo_list_team_members'. While the verb 'Get' is clear, the resource scope remains vague.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing organization/project context), contrast with 'azdo_list_teams' for listing all teams versus getting details of a specific one, or specify use cases like retrieving team settings or membership. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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