list_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about 'recent' and 'persistent operational ledger', but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, or whether cwd affects results. With annotations covering the main safety aspect, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object. It delivers the core purpose immediately and contains zero redundant 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 simple list operation with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic intent. However, it leaves cwd semantics unexplained and provides no detail on output format or pagination, which an agent might need to call it effectively. It is minimal viable but has clear gaps.

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 0% – the description does not mention cwd or limit at all. While limit has schema constraints (1–100) inferring its purpose, cwd is an unnamed string with no explanation in either schema or description, leaving the agent to guess its role. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('multi-agent teams') with a clear source scope ('persistent operational ledger'). It distinguishes this from siblings like start_team (creation) and get_team (single team retrieval) without needing to open their schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool – when you need a list of recent teams – but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on choosing between list_teams and related tools like get_team or list_runs, so the usage context is only inferred.

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