fossa_list_teams

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

The description enriches the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations with concrete behavioral details: FOSSA caps page_size at 50, include_all_with_members switches to an unpaginated deprecated endpoint, and results include specific fields. This goes far beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict side effects and constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds essential behavioral details in a logical order. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or filler.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It fully covers the pagination behavior, search semantics, the alternative deprecated mode, and the data returned. For a listing tool with no required parameters, this 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains page_size cap, search filters by team name, and the special behavior of include_all_with_members. The 'page' parameter is not explicitly described but is implied through the pagination discussion, so the compensation is strong but not exhaustive.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List the teams in the FOSSA organization.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like fossa_get_team by indicating it lists multiple teams, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: it explains pagination, page_size limits, search semantics, and when to use the deprecated 'include_all_with_members' option. It does not explicitly name alternatives like fossa_get_team for single-team retrieval, so it falls short of full when-not guidance.

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