Teamwork status

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 valuable behavioral context by detailing the response shape for solo projects (nothing to reserve) and teamwork projects (including online state, warning for server offline, and modification eligibility). It does not, however, mention any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error responses beyond a warning field, leaving some minor gaps.

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 long and heavily front-loads the critical precondition (call before the teamwork tools) but then includes an extensive JSON example that may be overly detailed for a tool description. It is not wasteful in every sentence, but the large response schema dump makes it less concise and could overwhelm an agent that just needs to know when to call it.

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 that there is no output schema, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema details the input parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role. It explains the return structure for both solo and teamwork projects, the meaning of statuses, and the rule for modifiable elements, leaving no critical gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the implications of the output for reservation status and access rights, e.g., that only ReservedByMe or Free (after reserving) elements can be modified. For the parameters themselves (elements, objectSets, includeMembers, includeAccessRights), the schema provides full details, so the description's added value is moderate.

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 specific verb+resource ('Teamwork status of the open project') and goes further to explain that it must be called before reserve_elements / release_elements / teamwork_send / teamwork_receive. It clearly distinguishes itself from those sibling tools by acting as a prerequisite status check rather than a reservation or sync operation.

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 explicitly names the tools it should precede ('call this before reserve_elements / release_elements / teamwork_send / teamwork_receive') and describes the branching outcome for solo vs teamwork projects, including the key rule that only ReservedByMe or Free (after reserving) elements can be modified. This removes ambiguity about when and why to use the tool.

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