list_teams_node_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, which describe safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior or rate limits), so it meets a baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 short (one phrase), which is concise but omits necessary context. While no wasted words, it is under-specified for a list operation with pagination.

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 3 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description fails to convey what the output contains or how pagination works. Sibling tools add variety but no differentiation is provided, making the tool less complete for an agent.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain the parameters (limit, offset, fetch_all) or their interactions (e.g., fetch_all overriding limit), leaving the agent to infer from defaults and types alone.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'Teams Connector node status', indicating a listing operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'get_teams_node_status' which likely returns a single node's status, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_teams_node_status'. The description does not mention pagination or batch retrieval scenarios, leaving the agent without context on typical usage.

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