Team plan status

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the API key is sent to the team backend, that only the API key is sent, that the response is cached locally, and that the fetched policy is enforced alongside the user's own policy. This adds meaningful auth, network, and side-effect context for an open-world, non-read-only tool.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before prerequisites and behavioral details. Every sentence contributes useful information about what is synced, what is shown, what credentials are needed, and what is transmitted.

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 tool's side effect and network access, the description covers the key auth requirement, what is sent, caching behavior, and the information surfaced by the status check. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter tool without an output schema, though it could clarify the user-confirmation requirement more directly.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that `confirm_network` must be true and that the user should be asked first. The description reinforces that the API key is sent to the backend but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 states specific actions and scope: syncing the organisation policy from the team backend and showing organisation, role, policy version, and fleet reporting status. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `team_report` or other team-related tools.

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?

It gives a prerequisite (a team API key via MCP_SECURITY_API_KEY or plugin setting) and notes that the answer is cached locally. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `team_report`, nor does it state exclusions.

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