balena_get_team

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, response format, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not go beyond them.

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 sentence that is efficient and to the point. It clearly states the action and the target with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 with one parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the core operation, and annotations cover safety. However, it lacks information about return values, error behavior, or any prerequisites. Given the low complexity, this might be acceptable, but it is not fully complete as it does not tell the agent what to expect from the call.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'by numeric ID', which duplicates the schema's type information. It does not explain the meaning of the ID, any format expectations, or what the parameter is used for beyond being an identifier. This minimal addition does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'one team' with a clear identifier 'numeric ID'. This distinguishes it from list operations like balena_list_teams. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that balena_list_teams should be used to get all teams, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for when to use get versus list. The only implied usage is when you have a numeric ID, but this is not explicit.

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