npm_org_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a key behavioral requirement—authentication as an org member—which is not in the annotations. This is useful context that goes beyond the structured data.

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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the primary action ('List all teams...') and includes only essential extra information (auth requirement). No fluff or repetition.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, clear purpose) and strong annotations (read-only, non-destructive), the description is mostly complete. It could mention pagination or response format, especially since there is no output schema, but for a straightforward list operation it is adequate.

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 input schema already provides full coverage with a description for the only parameter 'org' ('Organization name (without @ prefix)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List all teams within an npm organization.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_org_members (list members) and npm_team_members (list members of a team), making its purpose 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to list teams in an npm org. It also mentions a prerequisite ('Requires authentication as an org member'), which helps the agent understand preconditions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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