collaboration_teams

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

The description mentions '(read-only)', indicating no destructive side effects, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but remains minimal.

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 sentence of 5 words, including a parenthetical note. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource, without any redundant information.

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 a simple list operation with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on return format (e.g., team names, objects), potential pagination, and error scenarios. With no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'org' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'org' represents (e.g., name, ID) or provide any additional meaning beyond the parameter name. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'List teams in an organization (read-only)', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like collaboration_team (individual team) and collaboration_team_members (members of a team).

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 implies usage for listing all teams in an organization, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like collaboration_team or when not to use it. It provides no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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