listTeams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 200 success response with example JSON, but provides no meaningful behavioral information about pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'success' actually means. The example JSON with 'key': 'value' is completely uninformative about actual response structure.

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?

While the description is structured with sections, it's not appropriately sized for its purpose. The parameter listing with 'No description' repeated 16 times adds bulk without value. The example response with generic 'key': 'value' is wasted space. The description is simultaneously verbose (repetitive parameter formatting) and under-specified (lacking meaningful content).

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 tool with 16 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and complex filtering capabilities, this description is completely inadequate. While there is an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description provides no meaningful context about what teams are, how filtering works, pagination behavior, or response format. The example JSON is useless for understanding actual return values.

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%, so the description must compensate for 16 undocumented parameters. While it lists all parameter names, every single one is marked 'No description.' The description adds no semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema property names. Parameters like 'filter_backstage_id', 'filter_cortex_id', 'filter_opslevel_id' remain completely unexplained despite being critical filtering options.

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 states 'List teams' which is a tautology of the tool name 'listTeams'. It provides no additional context about what 'teams' are in this system, what information is returned, or how this differs from other list tools like 'listUsers' or 'listServices'. While it does specify the verb+resource, it doesn't distinguish from siblings or provide meaningful purpose clarification beyond the obvious.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple other list/search tools in the sibling set (listAlerts, listIncidents, listServices, etc.), but no indication of when teams listing is appropriate versus other entity types. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no comparison to similar tools.

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