goclaw_team_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get team details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., members, settings). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include in the response, potential errors, or usage context relative to siblings. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Team ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get team details' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (team details), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'goclaw_team_list' (which likely lists multiple teams) or 'goclaw_team_update' (which modifies teams), leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'goclaw_team_list' (likely for listing teams) and 'goclaw_team_get' (for retrieving a specific team), the description doesn't specify that this is for fetching details of a single team by ID, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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