get-team

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which establishes the tool as non-mutating. The description reinforces this with the GET endpoint, but it does not disclose behavior on edge cases like invalid or non-existent ids. Given the read-only annotation, the description adds acceptable but minimal behavioral context.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. Including the endpoint is useful and does not add unnecessary length.

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 simple one-parameter read-only fetch, the description provides enough context: the resource, the endpoint, and the required id. However, without an output schema, a note about the return shape or missing-team behavior would make it fully complete.

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 fully documents the id parameter with type, constraints, and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 operation: 'Fetch a team by id' and includes the HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-teams, which fetch multiple teams, and get-me, which fetches the current user.

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 this tool should be used when a specific team id is known and a single team is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list-teams for enumeration, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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