List teams

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic list action. There is no mention of pagination, ordering, return format, or scope details beyond what the parameter schema already states.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential operation and scope efficiently.

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 simple, read-only, single-parameter list operation, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit return-value details, but there is no output schema and the expected resource is clearly stated.

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%, and the 'project' parameter is already described as 'Project name or id'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about this parameter, so the baseline score applies.

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 operation ('List') and the resource ('teams'), with a project scope. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_projects and list_team_members, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 this tool is for listing teams within a specific project, which is enough context for a straightforward read operation. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling list tools or any exclusions.

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