team_prefs_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it is 'legacy undocumented' but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, error scenarios, or any side effects. The tool likely reads preferences, but this is not confirmed.

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, consisting of a single phrase that conveys the essential purpose and legacy status. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but it is not wasteful.

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 parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations. Despite simplicity, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the relationship to the sibling 'team_preferences_list', nor does it clarify the expected output or preconditions. The 'legacy undocumented' note is helpful but insufficient for full context.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing extra to describe. According to guidelines, 0 parameters give a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'team preferences', and adds context by labeling it as 'legacy undocumented'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'team_preferences_list', which may have the same or similar purpose.

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. The 'legacy undocumented' hint implies it might not be the preferred choice, but the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest a better alternative like 'team_preferences_list'.

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