github_teams_list_child_in_org

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

No annotations are provided, but the description adds no behavioral information beyond the name. It does not clarify whether the tool returns direct children only, or if it is a paginated read operation (though pagination params are in schema).

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 (3 words), but it is not overly verbose. However, it is too short to be maximally helpful; a bit more context would improve it.

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 hierarchical nature of GitHub teams and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between parent and child teams or the response format.

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% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 'List child teams' clearly indicates the verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_teams_list_child_legacy or clarify the hierarchical context. It is minimal but adequate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to list child teams versus list all teams or use the legacy version.

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