list_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all teams,' omitting any indication of pagination (though schema covers it), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the minimal verb and resource.

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 just four words, with no extraneous information. While effective, it could benefit from a bit more context (e.g., 'paginated list') without becoming verbose. The front-loading is good.

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 the simple nature of a list tool with pagination handled by the schema, the description is adequate for basic use. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., returns an array of team objects) and does not differentiate from sibling list tools like 'list_meetings', making it slightly less complete for an agent that needs to decide between them.

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% coverage for both parameters (page and page_size) with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all teams' clearly specifies the verb (list) and resource (teams), indicating a straightforward retrieval operation. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_team_members' or 'list_meetings', which also list resources, but the distinct resource name makes it unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_summary' or 'list_team_members'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without help.

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