pylon_get_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed information (team members, roles, workload, metrics), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency for a read operation.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and resource, and the second lists the returned details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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's complexity (a read operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, but it could improve by mentioning output format or error cases. However, it adequately covers the context for a straightforward getter tool.

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 100% description coverage, with team_id well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but since there is only one parameter and schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description compensates by clarifying the output semantics (what information is returned), justifying a score of 4.

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 detailed information') and resource ('about a specific support team'), distinguishing it from siblings like pylon_get_teams (which lists teams) and pylon_get_issues (which deals with issues). It specifies the scope of information returned (team members, roles, workload, performance metrics), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 implies usage for retrieving details of a specific team, and the input schema's description for team_id provides guidance to 'Get this from pylon_get_teams first,' indicating a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives beyond the implied sibling pylon_get_teams, so it lacks full exclusion criteria.

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