github_teams_list_child_legacy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any specific behavioral traits of the legacy endpoint (e.g., deprecation status, data differences).

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 sentence with no superfluous words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no sections or bullet points) and could be improved with slightly more context without losing conciseness.

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 legacy list endpoint with no output schema, the description does not provide enough context: it does not mention that 'team_id' is required, what the response contains, or that pagination parameters are available. The schema covers parameters but the description omits overall purpose and usage context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'child teams', and adds '(Legacy)' to indicate this is a legacy endpoint. It distinguishes from the non-legacy sibling 'github_teams_list_child_in_org' by hinting at legacy status, though it could be more explicit.

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 the non-legacy alternative 'github_teams_list_child_in_org'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using a legacy endpoint.

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