vk_get_teams_e360f482b9bd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it is a raw proxy, requires authentication, usually does not require a request body, and that parameters are top-level fields accepting camelCase/snake_case aliases. This is solid coverage, though it omits pagination behavior specifics (which are in the schema).

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 front-loaded with 'Get teams.' It provides four sentences, each adding specific information without redundancy. No waste.

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 GET operation with all optional parameters documented in the schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, scope, auth, and parameter behavior. It could mention the response format explicitly, but 'Returns all teams' implies it adequately.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance on how parameters should be passed (top-level fields) and the alias convention (camelCase and snake_case), which is valuable beyond the raw 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 this tool gets teams and returns all teams the current user is a member of, with the specific resource 'GET /teams'. However, there is another vk_get_teams tool in the sibling list, and this description does not differentiate between them.

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 for fetching teams as a raw REST proxy, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or how it relates to other team-fetching tools.

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