team_info

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits, but it only gives a bare purpose. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or return value characteristics, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 concise—a single sentence with no fluff. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices meaningful content, which somewhat offsets conciseness.

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 tool has 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what 'info' comprises, how parameters affect results, or any usage patterns.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the tool description adds nothing about the 'team' or 'domain' parameters. The agent gets no help understanding what values to supply or their meaning.

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 the verb (get) and resource (team info). However, it inaccurately restricts scope to 'current team' while the schema allows specifying team and domain, which could retrieve info about other teams. This slight mismatch reduces clarity.

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 its many siblings like 'team_access_logs', 'team_billable_info', or 'team_prefs_get'. There are no descriptions of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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