team_get_services_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the output as a mapping and specifies the temporal scope ('most recent round'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'). It adds some context but leaves 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and output structure. The phrasing 'mapping service names to their check results' is slightly awkward but not overly verbose. It earns a high score for being front-loaded and concise.

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 provides enough context by explaining the return value (mapping of service names to check results) and the temporal scope. It does not detail possible errors or status interpretations, but for this complexity it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter team_id ('The ID of the team'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond reiterating 'for a team', which is already in the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current service status for a team', and further specifies the output as 'mapping service names to their check results for the most recent round'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like team_get_services (likely just lists services) and service_get_checks (per-service checks).

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 a team's service status for the latest round, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides a clear context but lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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