get_all_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the tool's behavior: it describes the return format ('formatted string containing team information... formatted as markdown'), mentions access control implications ('teams the user has read access to'), and explains filtering logic based on membership. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination details, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidelines bullet list, parameters explanation, and return format. Every sentence earns its place - the bullet points efficiently convey usage scenarios, and parameter descriptions are direct and informative without redundancy.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and return format details. For a read-only listing tool of moderate complexity, this description gives the agent everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 - and it does excellently. It provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'user_is_member_of' explains filtering logic, 'top' is 'maximum number of teams to return', and 'skip' is 'number of teams to skip'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Retrieves all teams in the Azure DevOps organization' - a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('teams') with organizational scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_team_members or get_team_iterations by focusing on team listing rather than team-specific details.

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 explicit usage scenarios in a bulleted list: 'Get an overview of all teams across projects', 'Find team IDs for use in other operations', 'Determine which teams exist', and 'Locate specific teams by name'. These give clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_projects or get_team_members.

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