get_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get' and the HTTP 'GET' verb, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose response contents, error behavior, authorization needs, or whether any related data is included. This is minimal and leaves important behavioral context unstated.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The parenthetical endpoint adds a useful concrete detail without bloating the text. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-resource getter with only two parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what the response looks like, what errors may occur, or any authentication requirements, leaving the agent with incomplete context for handling the result.

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 50%: extraQuery has a thorough schema description, but id has none. The description's 'by id' adds minimal semantic meaning to the id parameter, and the endpoint path clarifies it is the team identifier. It does not compensate much beyond that, but the required parameter's role is at least implied.

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 and resource: 'Get a team by id.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_teams, create_team, and update_team. Adding the explicit endpoint '(GET /teams/{id})' reinforces the exact 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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool should be used when a caller has a specific team identifier and wants the team record. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over list_teams or how it relates to other team-related tools, so routing is left mostly to inference.

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