rybbit_get_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses this is a read operation ('List') and the required auth scope ('org:read'), which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, error behavior, or return format beyond the content types included, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded with the action verb 'List,' and provides the key content scope and auth requirement without any unnecessary text.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what it does and the content returned ('including their members and site assignments'). It lacks details such as potential pagination or error handling, but is largely complete for a straightforward list operation.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'organizationId' described as 'Organization identifier.' The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces the concept of an organization. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List teams in an organization, including their members and site assignments.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rybbit_get_organizations (lists orgs) and rybbit_get_organization_members (lists members), as well as team mutation tools.

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 by stating the resource and content (teams, members, site assignments), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It also states the org:read scope requirement, which is a prerequisite but not a comparative guideline.

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