get_event_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the team is not found), or any permission requirements. For a read operation, the lack of explicit safety information is less critical, but the description offers no additional context beyond the basic action.

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 with no unnecessary words. The action is front-loaded, and the resource is clear. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, such as mentioning that it returns the team details for a specific event. Structure is good but not outstanding.

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 is simple, has an output schema (which covers return values), and requires two obvious IDs. The description is minimal but adequate for a straightforward getter. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., that both IDs must be valid) or what 'details' include beyond the schema. Given the low parameter semantics, the description could be more complete by clarifying the parameter roles and possibly the expected output format.

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%, so the description must compensate. It says 'specific team' and 'in an event', which implicitly maps to team_id and event_id, but it does not explain the meaning, format, or relationship of the parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema names provide, leaving the agent to infer the role of each ID. This is a significant gap given the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Retrieve details of a specific team in an event.' It names the resource (team) and the scope (event), which differentiates it from siblings like list_event_teams (which lists teams) and create_event_team (which creates). The verb 'retrieve' is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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. It does not mention list_event_teams for enumerating teams or create_event_team for adding teams. The usage is only implied by the name and the specific IDs, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are given. For a simple getter, some guidance on when to use it (e.g., when you have a specific team_id) would be helpful, but it's absent.

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