get_team_directory

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial extra context: the default compact row-array shape, its exact columns, the 60-char project truncation rule, that status is computed_status, and that full exposes capabilities/heartbeat/escalation_to/timestamps.

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?

Compact two-sentence structure, front-loaded with the primary behavior and the default/full trade-off emphasized via the dash. The long parenthetical is dense but each clause carries new 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (columns, truncation, full-profile fields), so an agent knows exactly what it gets in either mode.

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 100% and the single param is documented, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by enumerating what 'full' actually returns (capabilities, heartbeat, escalation_to, timestamps, full zone text), which the schema's terse boolean description does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the workspace team directory') and scopes it precisely ('listing all agents and human members'), which distinguishes it from narrow siblings like list_sub_agents and get_my_rules.

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?

Clearly routes the caller: default returns the compact table, 'pass full=true for the complete dump'. That is explicit conditional guidance for the one mode choice, though it never names alternatives or says when a directory lookup is preferable to other discovery tools.

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