get-team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get detailed information', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or the structure of the returned information. This lack of detail fails to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or missing information. It is as concise as possible while remaining clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details about what 'detailed information' includes. With siblings like 'get-team-members' and 'get-team-oncall', more context about the scope of the returned data would be beneficial. However, the core function is clear, so it is minimally adequate.

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 input schema has one parameter 'teamId' with a description that already explains its purpose. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('detailed information about a specific Datadog team'), and the method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list-teams' (which returns multiple teams) and 'create-team' (which creates a team), making the tool's purpose 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 implies using this tool when you have a team ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'list-teams' or 'get-team-members'. No exclusion criteria or scenarios are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage without guidance.

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