collaboration_team_repos

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds 'read-only' hint, but fails to disclose pagination, rate limits, error handling for nonexistent teams, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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?

Single sentence front-loading key information. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is minimal. Lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavior for missing teams. Not complete for a tool with 2 required parameters.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. Description does not explain what org and teamSlug represent or any constraints beyond schema types. No additional meaning added.

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 uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'repos' with scope 'an organization team can access' and clarifies it's read-only. Distinguishes from sibling tools like collaboration_teams (list teams) and collaboration_repo_access_inspect (inspect access).

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?

Implied usage to list team repos, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. Does not mention alternative tools for modifying team repos (e.g., collaboration_team_repo_set) or other scenarios.

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