team_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavior itself. It does add one genuinely useful trait — it will not reconstruct a missing session, so an agent knows to expect a failure rather than synthesized state. It never states that it is read-only/non-mutating, what error surfaces for an unknown session_id, or whether the action is rate-limited.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the return-field list is front-loaded so the agent learns the payload shape immediately. The trailing clause is slightly oblique but earns its place as the only behavioral constraint given.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values need no further explanation, and the two parameters are fairly self-explanatory by name. However, for a session-scoped read tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the lookup semantics and failure behavior underspecified.

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?

Both parameters have 0% description coverage in the schema and the description mentions neither session_id nor workspace_path. It is unclear whether workspace_path scopes lookup across workspaces or identifies where the transcript path is rooted, which matters for constructing correct calls.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('team session') and enumerates what comes back: running/finished state, last message, decision, transcript path. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like team_transcript or team_decisions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus team_transcript, team_report, team_decisions or team_agents. 'Never reconstructs a missing session' hints at the precondition (session must already exist) but never says so directly or routes the agent anywhere else.

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