get_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'gets' a team, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, permissions, or rate limits. The burden on the description is not fully met.

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?

A single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words, every part adds value. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 has no output schema, so the description should ideally mention what is returned (e.g., the team object). It does not, leaving the agent to infer. However, for a simple retrieval tool with well-documented parameters, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the fallback behavior for teamId (VERCEL_TEAM_ID), which is valuable context beyond the schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'single team', and identifies the lookup keys (id or slug). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_teams, which retrieves all teams.

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 implies usage when a specific team is needed, but does not explicitly contrast with list_teams or other tools, nor does it provide when-not conditions. The guidance is minimal.

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