sac_teams_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool lists groups (read-only) and mentions the SCIM protocol, but fails to disclose potential behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether results are paginated. The description is minimal for behavioral insight.

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 that efficiently conveys the primary purpose and key distinction, with no wasted words.

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 listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and returned group types well. It is slightly incomplete by not mentioning pagination behavior or default result limits, but overall it provides sufficient 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% description coverage, so the schema already documents the three parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'SCIM filter' and that startIndex is 1-based, but this largely repeats the schema. 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 tool lists user security groups via SCIM v2, specifying the exact endpoint and differentiating these groups from file storage folders, which helps the agent understand the resource and action.

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 indicates these groups are for role assignments and access control, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools like sac_teams_create or sac_users_list, nor when not to use it.

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