get_team_by_uid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if UID is invalid), rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., errors, auth), return values, or parameter specifics. For a read tool with one parameter, this minimal description leaves too many open questions about how to use it effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by UID', which aligns with the 'uid' parameter in the schema, adding semantic context that this is the identifier for retrieval. However, it doesn't explain the UID format, constraints, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('team details by UID'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_teams' by specifying retrieval of a single team via UID rather than listing all teams. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'team details' includes or the specific scope.

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 you need team details for a specific UID, suggesting an alternative to 'list_teams' for bulk retrieval. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other team-related tools (none exist in siblings) or prerequisites like authentication needs. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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