alga_teams_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that results are paginated one page at a time, but omits the default page size (25), the 100-item cap, default ordering, and what the response contains — meaningful gaps for a listing tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the usage guidance following immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers purpose, pagination and the filter surface, which is a reasonable minimum. It leaves the sort/order/paging behavior and the shape of returned team records unstated, so an agent still has to inspect the schema to call it confidently.

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 across 7 parameters, and it only maps three of them (team_name, manager, has_manager). The pagination and sort/order parameters are left entirely to inferred meaning from their names, enums and defaults, which is adequate but not explained.

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 ("List teams of users") plus the paged delivery model, which separates it from the other alga_*_list siblings by resource type. It stops short of naming any other tool or clarifying how it differs from a hypothetical single-team lookup, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

"Use to browse or filter by team name, manager or whether a team has a manager" gives clear usage context and names the three filter dimensions that trigger this tool. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no named alternative, so it does not reach a 5.

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