How to write a TeamOnly app

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the subject matter of the returned content, so the agent knows what questions the document can answer. It does not describe the return shape (single document? sections?) or length, which keeps it at a 4.

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?

One sentence plus a one-clause imperative, with the purpose front-loaded and the topic list serving the concrete job of telling the agent what it can learn. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only documentation fetch with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to decide and call: what it returns, what it covers, and when to invoke it. No meaningful gap remains.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by framing the tool as a document to be read rather than a query.

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 names a specific resource (the rules for writing a TeamOnly app) and enumerates the topics covered — supported stack, signed-in person, database, files, secrets, email, scheduled jobs, roles. That enumeration makes it unmistakable against siblings like deploy, init, or roles, which each cover one narrow slice.

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?

"Read this before writing or changing app code" gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly sequences it ahead of init/deploy. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g. when only inspecting a deployed app) or naming siblings as alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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