whodb_platform_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that workspace targeting is per-call and leaves defaults untouched — but says nothing about pagination, result scope, or side effects beyond what the annotations cover.

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?

Two sentences, purpose first and workspace detail second, with no filler or repetition. It is as short as a useful definition can be.

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 read-only listing tool, the purpose plus 100% schema parameter coverage plus annotations' safety profile leave little unexplained. The odd team_id/resource_id/resource_type params are not related back to team listing, a minor gap, but the core contract is 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 schema already documents all five parameters, including the nested workspace object. The description echoes the workspace {host, org, project} shape and its non-persistent behavior but adds no semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List organization teams'), and the annotation title repeats it consistently. It does not name the sibling whodb_platform_team_members, so an agent must infer that this lists teams rather than the members within a team, keeping it short of a 5.

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 gives one usage context: passing workspace for per-call targeting without changing defaults. It never states when to choose this over alternatives such as whodb_platform_team_members for member lists or whodb_platform_session_use for changing defaults, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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