Teams Guide MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads and returns files, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist or is unreadable), file size limits, encoding assumptions, or security considerations. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences that directly state the tool's function and path usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows up with practical details.

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 file-reading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'returns' means (e.g., content as string, binary data, structured format), error conditions, or performance implications. Given the complexity of file I/O and lack of structured safety hints, more behavioral context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'filePath' clearly documented as the path to read (including examples). The description adds marginal value by mentioning support for both absolute paths and relative paths from the current working directory, which slightly expands on the schema's example. However, this doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'read files from external projects and return them' (verb+resource). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_clean_code' and 'get_guide' by focusing on file reading rather than code analysis or documentation retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself beyond the general domain difference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'external projects' but doesn't clarify what qualifies as external or when to use this over other file-reading methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools.

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