team_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the managed agent limitation, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get'), nor does it mention error behavior or response format. The description adds one behavioral constraint but lacks broader transparency.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with the primary purpose stated first. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand 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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It explains the main function and the managed agent limitation, but it does not describe the structure of the returned data (e.g., what 'members' includes) or any error conditions. For a simple get tool, it is mostly adequate but missing details that could affect how the agent interprets results.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the team_id parameter. It does not explain what team_id refers to, what format it should take, or that it's the identifier for the team. This is a significant gap since the schema only provides a type and minLength.

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 'Get a team and its members' with a specific verb (get) and resource (team plus members). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like team_list (list teams) and team_create by focusing on retrieving a single team with its members.

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 mentions 'Managed agents are limited to their own team,' which provides a usage constraint but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that managed agents should use this for their own team, but it doesn't state when not to use it or suggest other tools.

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