Workboard Get Teams Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint beyond the annotation: results are limited to teams the authenticated user belongs to, so it is not a global team listing. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or sort order for a list 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the sibling routing cue — no filler sentences. The middle sentence describing return fields (IDs, names, owner user IDs) is largely redundant given an output schema exists, so it does not fully earn 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with a full output schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers purpose, scope, and the relevant alternative. The only omissions are list-behavior details such as pagination or result-size expectations, which are minor here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The scope statement ('authenticated user belongs to') usefully explains that no filter parameter is required or available.

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 (Get) and resource (teams) with an explicit scope: teams the authenticated user belongs to, not all teams. It also names the sibling workboard_get_team_members_tool, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use workboard_get_team_members_tool when the full member list (with user_ids) for a specific team is needed. That gives a clear alternative with its selecting condition, though there is no stated 'when not to use' or prerequisite (e.g., auth) guidance.

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