get_agent_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool provides 'status' and 'output previews' for each sub-agent, and promises a 'full picture.' However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe any side effects, error conditions, or limitations, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences long, each with a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing usage context, and comparing to a sibling. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides sufficient orientation: it states the purpose, when to use, and what information is visible (status, output previews). It does not describe return format exactly, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by this preview mention.

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 schema already provides a complete description for the single parameter (task_id as 'The task ID of the lead agent'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little new semantic detail beyond reaffirming the lead agent context, which matches the schema exactly.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a lead agent and all sub-agents it has spawned.' It also differentiates from sibling tool check_tasks by noting it is 'More detailed than check_tasks for multi-agent 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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when a task is using Claude Code agent teams.' It also provides an alternative comparison: 'More detailed than check_tasks for multi-agent operations,' giving clear guidance on when to prefer this tool.

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