faceit_getTeam

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieve team details' and includes the endpoint, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. For a read-only retrieval, this is adequate but minimal.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the purpose, then usage, followed by endpoint, parameters, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage, parameter details, endpoint, and a note on return value. It is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter: 'team_id (path, str, required): The id of the team'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's title and type, helping the agent understand the parameter's role.

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 tool retrieves team details and provides the full team record. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like faceit_getTeamStats or faceit_getTeamTournaments.

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 says 'Use when you already have the team_id and want the full team record,' providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives like faceit_searchTeams.

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