team_list

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'list all teams' but does not mention pagination behavior even though the input schema includes pagination parameters. It also does not indicate if the list is comprehensive or limited by access.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No extraneous words.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., array of team objects, pagination metadata). For a simple list tool, agents may infer structure, but it remains incomplete without specifying response fields.

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 page and per_page, so baseline is 3. Description does not add any additional context about how these parameters affect the listing (e.g., pagination ordering).

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?

Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'teams', specifying scope 'in the organization'. No ambiguity and distinguishes from sibling tools as no other team listing tool exists.

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?

Description implies usage for listing teams but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or postconditions. While no alternative listing tool exists, the description does not clarify context such as required permissions or scope.

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