Gitea: List org teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of whether the listing is paginated (page/limit exist), what permission level is needed to enumerate org teams, or whether private teams are included. For a 4-parameter list tool the description carries no additional 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?

One short sentence with the resource scope front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, but the "[UNIFIED]" token is noise that consumes attention without informing. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

The tool is simple (a filtered list read), and readOnlyHint plus the sentence cover the core. However, with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the agent gets no information about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what a team object contains, which the definition could have supplied in one additional clause.

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 not – but the parameters themselves (site, org, page, limit) are self-explanatory by name, and the description anchors their meaning in "in an organization" and "all teams" (i.e., org scopes the result, page/limit control enumeration). It adds no format details, pagination semantics, or defaults explanation, so it stays at baseline rather than excelling.

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 all teams in an organization." This is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like gitea_list_team_members (members of a team) and gitea_list_org_repos (repos of an org), though the sibling differentiation is implicit via the resource noun rather than explicit. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix adds no meaning.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no mention of the obvious alternative gitea_list_team_members. The agent must infer from the name alone that this returns teams rather than members. No prerequisites such as required org-level permissions are stated.

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