cor_list_teams

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond being a listing operation. It fails to mention pagination behavior (e.g., whether results are sorted, maximum per_page), authentication requirements, or read-only nature.

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 very concise (one sentence plus parameter list), but it is under-specified. It is not overly verbose, yet it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of team objects, paginated response). It lacks context about typical use cases or constraints, making it inadequate for a tool with two parameters and no parameter descriptions.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. However, it only restates the parameter names and defaults from the schema ('page', 'per_page') without adding any semantic detail about format, constraints, or behavior.

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 states 'List teams' which is a clear verb+resource, but it is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It provides no differentiation from sibling list tools like cor_list_clients or cor_list_projects, though the name itself distinguishes the resource.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., searching teams, getting a specific team). There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or exclusion criteria.

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