cigchat_team_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and a required scope, which are useful. However, it does not describe the response format or any potential side effects, though for a simple read operation this is somewhat sufficient.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes the API endpoint in brackets, and appends the auth requirement. Every element earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description is vague about what 'workspace info' includes. Without an output schema, the agent is left guessing what data will be returned. It is minimally adequate but lacks explicit detail on the return value.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 resource ('workspace info') and the action ('Get'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on workspace-level information rather than team members or agent groups, though the exact scope of 'workspace info' is left 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 only an authorization requirement (Manage Team scope) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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