apidog_list_user_teams

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It transparently implies a read-only listing of teams scoped to the current user, but provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination, sorting, or authentication requirements. This is adequate for a simple list, but minimal.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately communicates the core function. No extraneous words, perfectly concise.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys its purpose and scope. It is not missing any critical details that would impair an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not add extra context about return format or prerequisites.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies here, and the description adds a clear semantic scope ('accessible by the current user').

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('teams') with a useful scope ('accessible by the current user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_list_user_projects and apidog_list_team_projects, which have different scopes.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, without mentioning exclusions or when to prefer sibling tools like apidog_list_team_projects or apidog_list_user_projects.

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