get_teams_compact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: a lower authorization bar than the sibling tool. It also reveals the return shape (ID, name, emoji). It does not discuss pagination defaults or what happens with very large team lists, though the schema covers page/page_size semantics.

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 core content is front-loaded and tight: purpose, auth comparison, and chaining advice in three sentences. It wastes some space on boilerplate that repeats the name ('Get Teams Compact'), the raw endpoint, and 'Tags: Teams'.

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 read-only list tool with four optional params and no output schema, the definition supplies everything needed: purpose, alternative, access requirement, returned fields, and the follow-up call. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and each parameter is described in-schema, including the notable `ids` behavior that disables all other filters and pagination. The description adds useful orientation by explaining that this is the lightweight list used for conversation assignment.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get teams compact) and defines the shape of the result: a short form list of ID, name and emoji, as offered by the web UI when assigning a conversation. It explicitly contrasts with `get_teams`, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting 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?

Gives the selecting condition directly: any authenticated agent can use it, whereas `get_teams` requires `teams:manage`. It also names the downstream step (pass the returned `id` as `assignee_id` of `update_team_assignee`), which is exactly the chaining guidance an agent needs.

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