get_team_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavior. It correctly implies a read operation by calling it a 'snapshot', but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that no changes are made. The agent is left to infer safety.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then key details. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It mentions all key aspects of the status. However, it could be slightly more explicit about it being a read-only operation.

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 only parameter 'lang' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional information about parameter behavior 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 returns a 'concise status snapshot' and enumerates specific components: initialization, team/roster, counts of open tasks/reports/issues, and recent activity. This is distinct from sibling tools like list_tasks or get_available_teams which provide only partial data.

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 tool is useful for quick overview, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. For example, if an agent needs detailed task info, it should use list_tasks instead.

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