Get a team (with members)

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool fetches a team including members, which is a read operation but does not describe what happens if the team is not found, any authentication requirements, or response format. This is adequate for a simple fetch but not deeply transparent.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. No filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 get-by-id tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details on return values (what shape the member users take), error handling, or the role of the 'organization' parameter. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description carries a heavier burden than it fulfills, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 mentions 'by id' (teamId) but does not explain the 'organization' parameter at all. The schema only provides parameter types, so the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. This is a significant gap for the undocumented 'organization' parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource 'a team by id' and adds 'including its member users', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wflow_list_teams (which lists all teams) and wflow_upsert_team/wflow_delete_team. This fully clarifies what the tool does.

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 usage: use when you need a specific team by its id, and its members. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like wflow_list_teams for broader queries. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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