eda_dmt_team_get_all_involved_team_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers nothing beyond the method signature and a redundant restatement of the return type. It does not mention whether it is read-only (likely, given 'get'), potential errors, permission requirements, or behavior when the user has no involved teams. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 brief but redundant, repeating '所有参与的团队的详细属性' twice (once in the main line and once after 'returns:'). It also opens with the internal method name 'dmt_Team.getAllInvolvedTeamInfo()', which is not useful to an agent. The structure is short but wastes a line on repetition, making it less efficient than it could be.

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?

For a simple getter with no required parameters and no output schema, the description still lacks essential context. It does not explain what 'detailed attributes' means, what fields are in IDMT_TeamItem, or how the result is structured. An agent cannot know what information to expect from the return value, making the description insufficient for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (args and windowId), and the schema already explains their roles (array of JSON args, target window ID). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies. No further compensation is needed since the schema is complete.

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: '获取所有参与的团队的详细属性' (get detailed attributes of all involved teams), paired with the method signature and return type. The verb 'get' and resource 'involved teams' are specific, and the naming distinguishes it from sibling tools like eda_dmt_team_get_all_teams_info (all teams) and eda_dmt_team_get_current_team_info (current team), even though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives like eda_dmt_team_get_all_teams_info or eda_dmt_team_get_current_team_info, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions. The purpose is implicit from the name, but the agent receives no explicit routing between the related team tools.

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