github_teams_list_for_authenticated_user

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the user has no teams. The pagination parameters are described in the schema, but the description adds no additional transparency.

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 (4 words) and front-loaded with the verb. However, it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, such as clarifying the scope or result type.

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 existence of many sibling team-related tools and no output schema, the description lacks crucial context about what exactly is listed. It suffices only for the simplest interpretation, but fails to provide a complete picture for an AI agent to select this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters ('per_page', 'page') having detailed explanations about pagination. The description does not mention parameters, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline 3 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 'teams' with the scope 'for the authenticated user'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_teams_list' which may list teams for an organization, missing explicit scope clarification.

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 such as 'github_teams_list_child_in_org' or 'github_teams_list_members_in_org'. There is no context on what kind of teams are listed (e.g., user's memberships or owned teams).

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