get_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), error conditions, or what happens when no teams match the criteria. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only listing tool with comprehensive schema documentation (100% coverage) but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource but doesn't explain what the return values look like, how results are structured, or provide context about the Datadog teams concept. The absence of annotations means more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'teams and their members' which aligns with the 'include_members' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Datadog teams and their members'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_monitors' or 'list_slos' in terms of what makes team retrieval distinct from other listing operations in the Datadog context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_monitors' and 'list_slos' available, there's no indication of whether this is the primary team listing tool or if there are specific scenarios where it should be preferred over other listing operations.

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