get-team-oncall

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (safe), but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior (e.g., missing team), or response format. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 of 9 words, maximally concise with no filler. Every word adds value, clearly stating the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no nested objects or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and sufficiently aids selection. Missing details like return format are not critical given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'teamId' is a string ID, 'include' is comma-separated relationships). Baseline is 3 as schema covers the parameters adequately.

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 'Get current on-call responders for a Datadog team' clearly conveys the verb (get), the resource (on-call responders), and the scope (for a Datadog team). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-oncall-schedule' which retrieves a schedule rather than current responders.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get-oncall-schedule). It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context for preferring this tool over siblings.

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