gitea_list_org_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't confirm this, disclose pagination behavior, explain return format, or mention authentication requirements for accessing organization teams.

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 core message is efficiently delivered in one sentence, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't aid tool selection. Otherwise appropriately sized.

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?

With 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It misses essential context like parameter semantics, pagination details, and return structure needed for proper invocation.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It only implicitly references the 'org' parameter via 'organization'. It fails to explain the 'site' parameter (presumably the Gitea instance), or the pagination controls (page/limit), leaving critical parameters undocumented.

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 verb (List) and resource (teams in an organization), distinguishing it from siblings like gitea_list_organizations (lists organizations) and gitea_list_team_members (lists members of a team). However, it lacks context about what constitutes a 'team' in Gitea.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites for the organization parameter, or how to handle pagination. The presence of page/limit parameters suggests pagination support, but the description doesn't explain this behavior.

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