github_repos_get_teams_with_access_to_protected_branch

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without detailing what 'access' means (e.g., push, admin), whether the response includes permission levels, or potential pagination. No mention of authentication needs or rate limits.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No redundant or unnecessary words. It earns its place with direct clarity.

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 the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not indicate what the response contains (e.g., list of team names, objects with permissions). No context about prerequisites (e.g., branch protection must be enabled) or how this tool relates to siblings. Incomplete for a retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters described, but the descriptions are tautological ('owner', 'repo', 'branch'). The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters. Baseline is 3 per guidelines since coverage is high, even though the schema descriptions are uninformative.

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 'Get teams with access to the protected branch' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (teams), and context (access to protected branch). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_apps_with_access_to_protected_branch and get_users_with_access_to_protected_branch by specifying '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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_apps_with_access_to_protected_branch, get_users_with_access_to_protected_branch). It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as requiring branch protection to be enabled, or when to prefer this over similar tools.

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