Get Teams Team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Read,' clearly indicating a read-only operation, and specifies that it returns settings and summary details, which sets expectations about scope. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., team membership), error behavior, or how to obtain the teamId. This is a minimal level of transparency for a simple get 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 concise: two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. The Chinese intents are somewhat redundant but not harmful, and they may aid multilingual usage. Overall, it is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter get tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return scope ('settings and summary details'). It does not explain the exact fields returned, but this is not expected given the lack of an output schema. It could arguably benefit from a pointer to teams_list_joined_teams for obtaining teamId, but the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (teamId) with a clear description, so the parameter semantics baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not specify the format or any constraints on teamId beyond what the schema says.

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 explicitly states 'Read settings and summary details for a Microsoft Teams team,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like teams_list_joined_teams (list all teams) and teams_get_channel (get a channel). The Chinese intents further reinforce the purpose.

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 when you need a single team's settings and summary, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided. Sibling tools like teams_list_joined_teams could be mentioned for getting team IDs, but the description lacks such guidance.

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