join_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Join a team' implies a mutation operation (likely creating a membership), but the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is a request or immediate action, potential side effects (e.g., notifications to team leaders), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. While this conciseness contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, it efficiently communicates the core action without waste, earning a high score for this criterion alone.

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 complexity of a mutation tool (joining a team likely changes state), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or what to expect upon success/failure. While parameters are covered by the schema, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is insufficient, especially compared to sibling tools that might interact with team membership.

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%, with both parameters ('teamId' and 'message') documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'Join a team' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'join' means operationally (e.g., request membership, auto-join, or become a member immediately) or what resource 'team' refers to in this context. While the verb 'join' is clear, the description lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'accept_join_request' or 'leave_team'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, team visibility), exclusions (e.g., cannot join private teams without invitation), or relationships to sibling tools like 'accept_join_request', 'decline_join_request', or 'leave_team'. Without this context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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