list-teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of listing teams, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or return format. Critical gaps for a mutation (read-only) tool without 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?

One sentence plus a list of example queries. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Very concise and well-structured for an agent.

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain pagination, return structure, or any behavioral quirks. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description provides minimal added value beyond schema descriptions (e.g., 'find team by name' relates to filterKeyword). Does not explain parameters in more depth, but schema itself is sufficiently descriptive.

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?

Description clearly states 'List teams' with a specific resource (teams) and verb (list). It also provides example use cases ('what teams exist', 'team structure', 'find team by name') that distinguish it from sibling list-* tools.

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?

Description gives explicit contexts for use ('what teams exist', 'team structure', 'find team by name'), helping the agent decide when to invoke. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, though the sibling list is extensive and implicit differentiation is present.

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