list_squads

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

The description offers no behavioral details beyond the basic listing action. It doesn't disclose whether it returns all squads, handles pagination, requires specific permissions, or what the response structure is. With no annotations provided, the description fails to carry the burden of transparency.

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 wastes no words. It immediately communicates the action and resource, with a parenthetical clarification. While minimal, it's highly concise.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what is returned or any scoping rules. It does not explain that listing may depend on workspace context, nor does it describe the response format. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 description does not mention the optional workspace_id parameter. However, the input schema includes a clear description for this parameter, so schema coverage is 100%. Thus, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('squads'), with a clarifying synonym ('teams'). This distinguishes it from related tools like list_squad_members and get_squad, which operate on different resources or granularities.

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 guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_squad or list_squad_members. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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