get_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the flexible input mechanism ('provide either teamId or fileId'), which is a useful trait beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if both IDs are provided, return format, or whether any side effects occur. The 'Get' verb implies a safe read, but the description adds limited 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then mentions the key input requirement. It contains no redundant words or filler, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves some gaps. It doesn't clarify what 'detailed information' includes or how conflicts are resolved if both teamId and fileId are provided. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should offer a bit more detail about the expected response or edge cases.

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 100%, with both parameters already described as alternatives ('optional if teamId provided' and vice versa). The description merely restates this ('provide either teamId or fileId'), adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Therefore, baseline 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 'Get detailed information about a specific team' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_teams (listing all teams) and get_team_stats (statistics). It also specifies the input options (teamId or fileId), 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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need detailed information about a single team, identified by either teamId or fileId. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the purpose is distinct enough from sibling tools that an agent can infer when to use it. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance but is not misleading.

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