list_teams

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it lists all teams. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, if there is pagination, sorting, or any access constraints. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema (implied but not shown), the description covers the basic functionality. It does not mention potential limitations like filtering or pagination, but for a simple list-all tool, it is mostly complete.

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 has no parameters, so the schema already fully defines the input. The description adds the context 'in the organisation', which clarifies the scope beyond the empty schema. This is a minor but helpful addition.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'teams', and clarifies scope with 'in the organisation'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_contacts or get_team.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_team for a single team or list_project_teams for teams within a project. The description offers no context on its appropriate use.

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