github_orgs_list_security_manager_teams

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'List' but does not confirm read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects. The expected return format or pagination behavior is absent.

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 extremely concise with no extraneous information. However, it may be too terse for an agent to fully understand usage. Structure is simple and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of team names). It does not. Also missing details on pagination, required scopes, or the concept of security manager teams. Incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 schema description for 'org' is simply 'org' (tautological). The tool description adds no further meaning or context for the parameter. Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter description is unhelpful, and the tool description does not compensate.

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 'List security manager teams' clearly indicates the action (List) and resource (security manager teams), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add/remove. However, it does not explicitly state the scope (organization) which is evident from the parameter.

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 guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other org-related list tools.

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