teams

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only lists read-like actions (list, get, members) without explicitly stating that the tool performs only read operations or disclosing any behavioral traits like authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the action list and usage context with no unnecessary words.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate high-level information but lacks details about return format, pagination behavior, or how errors are handled. It is minimally complete for basic use.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters to actions (e.g., 'list (with filters)', 'get (by ID)'), which helps the agent understand which parameters apply to each action.

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 tool manages Datadog teams and enumerates three actions (list, get, members). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'users' or 'dashboards', but does not explicitly state that it does not support create/update/delete operations.

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 usage context ('Use for: team organization, access management, collaboration') but does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for other team management operations.

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