sigma_list_all_teams

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

The annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that pagination is handled automatically. It discloses that the tool will fetch all pages, which is a non-obvious behavior not captured by the empty input schema or annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('List ALL teams') and then adds the key behavioral detail. No wasted words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema present and clear sibling context, the description is fully complete. It covers the essential distinction (ALL teams + automatic pagination) and requires no further elaboration.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed; it focuses on the scope and behavior.

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 tool lists ALL teams in the organization and explicitly mentions automatic pagination, which distinguishes it from siblings like sigma_list_teams that likely return a single page. The verb 'List' and resource 'teams' are specific, with scope 'ALL' adding precision.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a complete list of all teams without manual pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'ALL' and 'automatically following pagination' implies this is the comprehensive listing tool versus a paged one.

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