List Teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the function is a list and mentions user access, but omits details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The parameters suggest pagination but the description does not confirm or explain it.

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 at two sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loads the core purpose and adds one optional use case.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the returned team objects contain. It fails to describe the structure or fields of the returned data. For a list tool, this is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect usage.

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 for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra value by restating the organization filter, but does not deepen semantic understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Lists all teams the authenticated user has access to', specifying the verb and resource with a defined scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_organizations and list_users by explicitly naming 'teams'.

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 usage through scope ('authenticated user') and optional filtering ('Filter by organization if needed'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the listed sibling tools, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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