get_team_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the tool gets statistics and lists three types of counts, but does not describe output format, whether it's read-only, or any edge cases. The description is minimal and fails to provide comprehensive 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 with no redundant words. The parenthetical clarifies the scope efficiently.

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 or annotations, the description gives a rough idea of return content but lacks precision on what the statistics look like. For a simple tool, the description covers the core purpose but leaves some ambiguity about the exact response structure.

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 fully describes teamId as 'Team ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, leaving the baseline of 3.

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 tool returns team statistics, specifically projects, files, and member counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or get_team_members which return detailed lists, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The description implies usage when aggregate counts are needed, but does not mention when not to use or which sibling tools to prefer for detailed data.

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