team_next

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb "Read" implies a safe, non-mutating call, but the definition says nothing about whether it touches read state, how large the aggregate response is, ordering, or whether it assumes prior team_join. For a zero-parameter aggregate that an agent might call repeatedly, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the enumerated contents are the most useful part. The capitalized "Lanes" domain jargon and the vague framing phrase slightly reduce immediate legibility.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool the description does cover the main thing an agent needs, namely the scope of what comes back. It stops short of describing response shape, ordering, or how the four sections relate, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; the description neither adds nor misleads on parameter meaning. It is docked slightly because it frames the output purely as an "orientation" without clarifying that the aggregate is fixed and unconditional.

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 names a specific read action and enumerates the four payload sections it returns (carried work, shipped work, open Lanes, latest handoff), which tells an agent roughly what it produces. However, "Read your orientation" is metaphorical jargon rather than a concrete resource, and nothing distinguishes it from close siblings such as team_status, team_inbox_check, or lane_board.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many overlapping read tools in the sibling list (team_status, team_inbox_check, lane_board, team_wake_context). An agent must infer the moment of use from the word "orientation" alone, and no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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