team_list

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 richly discloses behavioral traits: the compact projection trims (NOT drops) fields, the full-list would exceed the MCP result ceiling at 148,173 chars / 316 teams, and teams accumulate per Workflow run/CC session so the list grows unbounded. This is excellent behavioral disclosure that justifies the default compact mode.

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 efficient — three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then progressively detailed behavioral context. Each sentence earns its place: purpose/order, projection behavior, and the size/rationale. Slightly verbose with the measured character count but that empirical detail is genuinely useful justification.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema coverage on parameters, the description is complete for this complexity level. It explains defaults, ordering, projection differences, and crucially the size/rationale that prevents agent confusion about why compact is the default. The empirical data about the result ceiling is exceptional context that prevents failed calls.

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%, so all four parameters (limit, fields, offset, status) are documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the compact projection semantics (trimmed vs missing fields) and the size rationale behind defaults, going slightly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers parameter meanings well.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'List teams — active ones by default, newest first.' It precisely states what the tool does, the default filtering, and ordering. While 'team_list' vs 'team_status' siblings could be confused, the description clearly distinguishes it as a listing operation of teams.

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 explains default behavior (active teams, newest first) and the default compact projection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of listing teams is clear enough, and the description of default vs 'all' fields gives usage context. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance against siblings.

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