List saved teams

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('List') and adds that Pokemon are included, but does not disclose any potential behaviors such as ordering, filtering, or whether it returns all saved teams. For a simple list operation, this is minimally adequate, but lacks explicit behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List saved teams'). Every word is useful, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately conveys the core function, but could add small context like 'all saved teams' or 'read-only' to be fully complete. Still, for its complexity, it is largely sufficient.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The mention of 'their Pokemon' gives some output context, though not directly about parameters.

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 saved teams and their Pokemon' clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('saved teams'), and the scope (including Pokemon). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_team (saving) and analyze_team (analyzing), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies this tool is used to view saved teams, and the sibling tool names provide context for alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools by name, so it falls short of a 5.

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