team_report

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does signal a non-mutating 'Read' plus a derivation source (Lanes and Acts). But it says nothing about what the report actually contains, how large it is, whether it is cached or live, or what permissions are needed — all things the agent would need to know before calling a reporting tool blind.

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?

Two compact sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The only cost is that the second sentence is dense with undefined internal vocabulary rather than being genuinely informative.

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 single optional enum parameter this is close to adequate, and the derivation hint gives some orientation. But there is no output schema, so the description is the only place the return shape could be explained, and 'measures outcomes and queues' is too vague to tell an agent what it will get back.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum description already spells out ic/team/exec meanings, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats the same three altitude names without adding semantics such as which to pick by default or what 'board', 'flow digest', and 'milestones + exceptions' contain in practice.

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?

It states a verb (Read) and a resource (Team coordination) and names the three altitude levels, so the general shape is clear. However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy ('Lanes and Acts', 'altitude', 'measures outcomes and queues') and never distinguishes this report from close siblings such as team_status, lane_board, or team_goals, so an agent cannot confidently pick it out of the list.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all, and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling set that also surface team state. The altitude choice is explained only inside the schema, not in the description, so routing decisions are left entirely to inference.

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