list_my_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior, return shape, or what happens when the tenant belongs to no teams.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and scope appear immediately, and every phrase contributes to the core filtering semantics.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks enough information about parameter formats, authorization context, return behavior, and pagination to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It names org_id and tenant_id and gives a rough relationship, but does not specify ID formats, whether tenant_id is the current user, or whether either parameter has constraints beyond being required.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list teams, scoped to an org and a tenant. It implicitly distinguishes itself from broader siblings like list_teams and list_my_orgs by saying these are the teams the tenant belongs to within the org.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need the teams associated with a given tenant inside a given org. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it versus list_teams, list_my_orgs, or list_team_members.

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