Team Brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond that: the write is non-destructive because 'existing files are kept unless overwrite=true', which tells the agent the tool will not clobber work by default. It stops short of 5 by not clarifying where files land or whether the spec must already exist.

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 compact lines: what it renders, when to use it, and what it returns. The artifact list is front-loaded, there is zero filler, and each sentence carries distinct 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?

For a multi-file generation tool with a full schema and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, trigger, overwrite safety, and return shape. The gap is minor: it does not state prerequisites (e.g., that app.spec.json must exist) or the output location of the rendered files.

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 all four parameters (repo, app_dir, sessions, overwrite) are already documented in the schema with types, defaults, and examples. The description only restates the overwrite behavior, adding no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Render') and resource ('the team docs') and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (TEAM.md, per-role briefs, onboarding plan, ASO research, CHECKLIST.md), so an agent knows precisely what will be generated. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like onboarding_plan or preview_brief, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

'Use when: setting up multi-session work' gives explicit triggering context, which is more than most definitions offer. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative for single-session work, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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