get_team_collection

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that filtering, sorting, pagination, and relation inclusion are supported, but it does not describe return format, pagination envelope, auth requirements, or rate limits. This is useful context but not rich behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the first two sentences ('Get all teams. Retrieve all teams.') are redundant. The remaining two sentences are useful but the definition would be tighter without the duplicate opening.

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 collection GET tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers basic capabilities but leaves important operational details unstated. It does not explain how the nested query object maps to filtering, sorting, or pagination, nor does it clarify the return shape for a collection. The definition is minimally viable but incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description mentions a 'relations parameter', but the actual schema parameter is named 'with', which creates a naming mismatch that could mislead invocation. It vaguely refers to custom filters, sorting, and pagination without naming the corresponding schema fields (query, order, page, limit). With top-level schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description does not compensate adequately.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: get/retrieve all teams. It distinguishes the collection from the singular get_team by saying 'all teams'. However, the first two sentences repeat the same idea without adding scope or differentiating from other collection siblings.

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?

It gives implied usage for filtering, sorting, pagination, and including relations, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_team, get_team_members, or get_my_project_collection. An agent can infer it is for listing teams but receives no explicit when-not or alternative routing.

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