read_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the active-by-default scoping behavior and the optional name filter, which is useful context. It does not cover pagination, return format, or sorting, but the annotation safety profile lowers the burden.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action, the default behavior, and the optional filter in the most economical way possible.

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 two optional parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is largely adequate. Gaps remain around includeInactive semantics and the return shape, and since there is no output schema, those details are not covered elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does convey that 'query' is a name filter and that active-by-default implies includeInactive defaults to false. However, it does not define query matching behavior (exact, substring, case sensitivity) or explicitly map includeInactive=true to including inactive teams.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'teams', and adds useful scope details: active by default and optional name filtering. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling read tools, but the resource is unambiguous and no other tool targets teams.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to list teams. However, it provides no when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools like read_meta or read_context, and it does not explicitly explain when includeInactive should be set to true. There are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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