get_teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add a concrete behavioral fact (requires the teams:manage permission) and the GET verb implies a non-mutating call. It says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or the size/shape of the result set, which matters for an unfiltered collection endpoint.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first line repeats the name verbatim and the endpoint path plus "Tags: Teams" line are scaffolding rather than agent-useful content. Nearly every line is boilerplate that could be replaced with one informative sentence.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by saying what comes back, and it doesn't. For a zero-parameter list endpoint, an agent still needs to know whether the response is a full team roster, whether it paginates, and how it differs from the compact sibling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline applies. The description does not misleadingly imply any filtering options, which is appropriate for an empty schema.

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?

"Get Teams" only restates the tool name; the sole added information is the raw endpoint GET /api/v1/teams, which still doesn't say whether this returns all teams, a team list with members, or paginated results. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_teams_compact.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when this is preferable to get_teams_compact or other list endpoints, and no prerequisites beyond the permission line. The agent is left to infer selection purely from the name.

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