fossa_get_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with "Read-only." Beyond that, it discloses request-count implications per section, parameter scoping across list sections, and sort restriction. This adds useful context about operational behavior and cost without contradicting 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?

Three focused paragraphs: first states purpose, second explains sections and cost, third clarifies parameter relationships. No filler or redundant repetition of schema defaults. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, 4 sections, output schema present), the description covers the key aspects: what each section returns, defaults, request cost, and shared parameter behavior. It does not describe output fields, but the output schema exists to provide that. The only minor gap is explicit alternative-tool comparison, but this is not essential.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explicitly explains `page`, `page_size`, `search`, `sort`, `sections`, and indirectly `team_id` ("numeric id"). It also explains shared application of pagination/search and the sort rejection condition, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: "Get a FOSSA team by its numeric id, and any of its member, project, and release group listings." This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like fossa_list_teams or fossa_get_team_groups by focusing on retrieving a single team with optional nested listings. The section breakdown further clarifies scope.

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?

It provides clear usage context: "Read-only," default behavior ("Defaults to 'team' alone"), and cost guidance ("Each section costs one FOSSA request, so ask only for what is needed"). It also warns about the `sort` parameter being rejected when neither 'projects' nor 'release_groups' is requested. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, though the purpose is self-evident.

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