get_authz_team

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. It only states the fundamental action without mentioning side effects, return structure, error behavior, or permission requirements. The agent is left to assume it's a read operation with no additional context.

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 consists of a single sentence with 6 words, instantly conveying the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (get by ID) and the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details about the response content (e.g., whether it returns full team details or just an ID), and there is no output schema to fill the gap. For a tool in a complex domain with many siblings, slightly more context would be beneficial.

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% with a single required parameter 'team_id' described as 'Team ID'. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Given the parameter is straightforward, the minimal addition is acceptable but does not improve clarity or usage.

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 a single authorization team by ID.' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('authorization team') with a clear method ('by ID'). It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like list_authz_teams (which retrieves multiple teams) or create/update/delete operations.

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 a specific team ID is known, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that list_authz_teams should be used for retrieving multiple teams or for discovery. The usage context is inferred but not stated.

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