list_teams

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

The description discloses the tool's read-only nature through the verb 'List' and specifies the returned data (teams and roles). It lacks explicit mention of authentication or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple list operation, and no annotations exist to contradict.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no unnecessary words. The usage instruction adds value.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what is listed (teams and roles) and how to use the results. It is complete for its simplicity.

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 no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. It actually provides additional context about how the output feeds into the `teamId` parameter of other tools.

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 lists all teams the user belongs to, including roles. It distinguishes from siblings like whoami or list_files by targeting the 'teams' resource specifically.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use the returned team IDs as the `teamId` argument for other tools, providing a clear when-to-use directive for team-scoped operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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