team_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get information' without mentioning that it is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it omits important context that could be added without excessive length.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it misrepresents the tool's scope by implying only 'current team' can be queried, when parameters allow fetching any team. This is a notable gap.

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 detailed descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying that the parameters are mutually exclusive or priority rules. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get information about the current team,' which clearly indicates a retrieval action on a team resource. However, it inaccurately implies only the current team is accessible, while parameters allow fetching by team ID or domain. Also, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like team_profile_get or team_prefs_get.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like team_profile_get or team_prefs_get. There is no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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