list_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Supports JSON output for detailed team information' which adds useful behavioral context about output format options. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions that would be important for a list operation.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidelines and output format information. Every sentence adds value, and the numbered list format for use cases is clear without being verbose.

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 operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and when to use it. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication scope or whether it lists only active teams, but overall it gives sufficient guidance for agent selection and invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds value by explaining the practical implications of the 'json' parameter: 'returns a detailed JSON response containing team metadata such as enterprise account name' versus 'returns a simplified text format.' This provides semantic context beyond the schema's technical specification.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'Heroku Teams the user belongs to', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_apps or list_addons by focusing specifically on team membership rather than other Heroku 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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'when you need to: 1) View all accessible teams, 2) Check team membership, 3) Get team metadata and enterprise relationships, or 4) Verify team access for app operations.' These four specific use cases give clear guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives.

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