get-team-info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get detailed information' but does not disclose what fields are returned, whether both parameters can be used together, what happens if neither is provided (both are optional), or any potential errors. This is a significant gap for a data-retrieval tool.

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 is front-loaded with the main action. There is zero wasted language, and it effectively communicates the core purpose. For a simple tool, this length is appropriate.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'detailed information' entails and confirm the behavior when both or neither parameters are supplied. It fails to do so. The tool has only two optional parameters, but the ambiguity around required inputs and return format makes the description incomplete.

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 already provides a 100% description coverage for the two parameters, with clear descriptions ('RobotEvents team ID' and 'Team number (e.g., '229V')'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific VEX team'. It is specific to retrieving details for a known team, distinguishing it from siblings like search-teams which are for finding teams. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other team-related tools (e.g., get-team-awards), nor does it list what 'detailed information' includes, so it is not a full 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrasts with sibling tools like search-teams. The only implied usage is that you must know either a team ID or team number, but this is not explicitly stated as a condition.

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