Get Team

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the tool returns specific fields, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose permissions, error behavior, or what happens if the team does not exist. The return info is helpful but minimal.

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 two short sentences that immediately state the verb and resource, then enumerate what is returned. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it names the resource and the specific return fields. It does not explain error handling or edge cases, but for a getter of this simplicity, that is not a significant gap. A perfect score would require explicit notes on not-found behavior or authentication.

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% (team_id is described as 'The TeamId to retrieve'), so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond 'single team', which is already captured by the name. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a single team'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_teams (plural). It also lists the specific data returned (name, creation date, member user IDs), which makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage: when you need a single team's details by ID. It does not explicitly state an alternative for listing teams, but the sibling name get_teams provides that contrast. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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