get-team

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

Annotations already convey that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that safety profile. It adds only the return scope ('properties') and stays consistent with the annotations, but it does not disclose error behavior, authorization needs, or response details.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential operation and resource in the minimum viable space.

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 is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and safety-relevant annotations are present, so an agent can invoke it correctly. Still, with no output schema, the description does not say what 'properties' will be returned or what happens when the teamId is invalid, and it gives no context about when to use this tool versus related team tools.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the baseline is met even though the tool description adds no parameter meaning. The schema's own 'Value for teamId' is tautological, and the description does not clarify where teamId comes from or what format it expects, but no additional descriptive burden is required due to the high coverage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a team's properties'), so an agent can tell it deals with a single team's metadata rather than channels or messages. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like list-joined-teams or get-team-channel.

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 gives no guidance on when to use get-team versus alternatives such as list-joined-teams for enumerating teams or get-team-channel for specific channel details. An agent must infer the intended usage from the tool name alone.

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