List joined teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds value by specifying the scope (only teams the user is a member of) and the output fields, which are not inferable from the schema (which is empty). No contradiction with 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 description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second provides a practical entry-point hint. Every word earns its place.

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, parameterless tool with annotations covering safety and an absent output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it returns and how to use it in a workflow. It lacks details like pagination or error handling, but these are minor for such 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't introduce any confusion.

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 tool lists teams the signed-in user is a member of, with specific fields (ids, display names, descriptions). The phrase 'Start here to get a team id for list_channels' distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the entry point for channel listing.

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 gives a concrete usage scenario ('Start here to get a team id for list_channels'), which implies when to use it in a workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like list_team_members or list_chats, but the entry-point hint is sufficient guidance for typical usage.

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