List this account's teams (user groups) with their members and the cost-tag tag_value each is reserved under — team-scoped budgets (create_budget with scope_type: "team") reference a team's id as scope_ref. Mirrors GET /api/accounts/:accountId/teams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing the account-level scope, the included fields (members and tag_value), and the downstream budget relationship. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two tightly written sentences lead with the action and resource, then add the crucial budget-scoping relationship. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.
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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the scope, the returned data, and an important use case. An agent can understand when and why to invoke it without further documentation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to document. The description still adds context by noting the account scope and the mirrored endpoint, making the tool's implicit input clear. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('this account's teams'), and the exact data returned (members and cost-tag tag_value). It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling list_* tools by focusing on teams and their role in team-scoped budgets.
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 explicitly connects this tool to a concrete use case: resolving team IDs for create_budget calls with scope_type: 'team'. It does not state when not to use it, but since no sibling tool lists teams, the usage context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by resource (budgets, alerts, anomalies, dashboards, cost tags, recommendations), so most are clearly separable. The cost-tag cluster and the dimension/facet listers are the places where an agent could misselect by name, though descriptions resolve the ambiguity.
All tools use snake_case verb_noun names with a clear convention: get_ fetches specific items, list_ enumerates collections, and query_ runs time-bucketed or analytical queries. The pattern holds across all 29 tools with no camelCase or mixed verb styles.
29 tools is well past the typical 3–15 sweet spot and even past the 16–25 heavy band, so the surface feels sprawling despite having few duplicates. Each tool maps to a distinct endpoint, but the sheer number makes it a heavy set for an agent to select from.
The read-side is strong: costs, usage, tags, budgets, alerts, anomalies, dashboards, recommendations, and data health are all queryable. However, the surface is almost entirely read-only, and descriptions reference absent tools like create_budget, create_alert_subscription, create_dashboard, set_dashboard_widgets, and delete_dashboard, creating dead ends. That is a significant gap for a cost-management platform.