List joined Teams

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the return format (JSON with count and teams array) and parameter constraints (limit range and defaults).

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 highly concise and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, one for usage guidance, then clear lists for args and returns. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return shape, and parameter details. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond a limit, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward tool. Annotations and sibling context provide additional completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates the defaults and return format but adds minimal additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 it lists Microsoft Teams the signed-in user is a member of, with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly mentions using it to discover team IDs needed by channel/message tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools like teams_list_channels.

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 to use this tool first to get team IDs for other operations, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple discovery tool.

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