team_scopes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the read-like behavior ('List...') and the conditional behavior based on 'handle'. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the instance is invalid. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 three sentences, each providing distinct value: the first defines the tool's action, the second explains parameter usage, the third suggests a practical use case. No wasted 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 the tool is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core behavior well. It explains both parameter modes and offers a concrete use case. It could mention pagination or expected output format, but for a list tool without output schema, this is quite complete.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The description explains the role of the 'handle' parameter (filtering to one person's memberships) which is slightly richer than the schema's terse 'Optional — show only this person's group memberships'. However, for 'instance_id', the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses specific verbs and nouns: 'List team groups and their members, or the groups a specific person belongs to.' It also clarifies the dual behavior based on presence of the 'handle' parameter and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'team_roster' or 'team_assign_role' by focusing on scope membership auditing.

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 clearly states when to pass the optional handle ('to see one person's scopes') and when to omit it ('to see all groups on the instance'). It also suggests a use case: 'Use to audit who can see group-scoped lessons.' However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or provide alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., team_audit, team_recall).

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