get_team

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details', which implies a read operation, but does not mention permissions, error handling, or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool with no other metadata.

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 that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (single required parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any indication of return values or error behavior, which is a gap for a tool without an output schema.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'team_id' as 'Team ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so a 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 clearly states 'Get details of a specific team', using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_current_team (current team without ID) and list_teams (all teams), but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 such as get_current_team or list_teams. The description does not mention context or exclusions.

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