list-teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List teams' with no mention of read-only nature, pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or performance implications. The description is insufficient to make behavioral traits transparent.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with a short usage hint. No redundant information; every phrase adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 list tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it lacks details about return values (e.g., what fields are returned) and pagination behavior. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% description coverage, with each parameter (pageNumber, pageSize, sort, filterKeyword) having a clear description. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate.

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 action ('List teams') and the specific resource ('in the Datadog organization'). It provides usage examples like 'what teams exist', 'team structure', 'find team by name', making it distinct from sibling list tools for other resources.

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 concrete usage scenarios ('what teams exist', 'team structure', 'find team by name'), indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., list_team_members), but the context of siblings makes the purpose clear.

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