azdo_list_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('List'), implying non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, output format, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List teams'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address output format, error cases, or behavioral nuances like pagination. While concise, it lacks the depth needed for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

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%, with both parameters ('organization' and 'project') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the project scope. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like parameter relationships or examples.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('teams in the project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'azdo_get_team' (singular retrieval) and 'azdo_list_team_members' (different resource). However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all teams vs. filtered) or mention the required organization parameter, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing organization/project context), compare to 'azdo_get_team' for single-team retrieval, or indicate scenarios like team discovery versus detailed lookup. The description alone offers no usage context.

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