team_seed_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful read-time content (the immutable source and the public exploration thread) and "immutable" implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about permissions required, behavior when the id is unknown or the seed is unshared, or whether the thread is paginated.

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 that identifies the operation first and then adds the payload content the caller will get back. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is close to sufficient: it says what is fetched and roughly what is included. It is only missing access requirements and failure behavior, which matter because there is no structured annotation coverage 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is documented as "Seed id", so the schema already does the work; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail about the id beyond what the schema states.

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?

"Read one shared Seed" gives a specific verb (Read), a specific resource (Seed), and a cardinality/scope qualifier (one, shared) that distinguishes it from a list operation. It does not name the sibling tools it contrasts with (team_seed_list, team_seed_update) explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: "one shared Seed" signals this is the single-record retrieval path versus a listing tool, and the required id parameter reinforces that. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (team membership, seed sharing) or when to prefer team_seed_list or team_seed_update.

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