Get Available Teams

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so by framing the operation as non-mutating ('List') and clarifying that the team documentation is deployed during init_project rather than by this call. It doesn't discuss permissions or rate limits, but for a simple enumeration tool the transparency is adequate.

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 concise, front-loads the core action, and adds useful deployment context in a second sentence. The file names are slightly detailed but earn their place by explaining what the preset teams ship with, so no part is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple, has one fully-documented optional parameter, and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool lists and when to use it, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and the single optional lang parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its limited effect on display prose. The description adds no param-level semantics beyond the schema, 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 opens with 'List bundled preset teams and their role rosters,' which is a specific verb plus resource and scope. The word 'bundled' and 'preset' help distinguish this from custom-team tooling like create_custom_team, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the sibling tools.

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 clearly states a concrete trigger: 'Useful before init_project to pick a template that fits the work.' It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, so it lacks an explicit when-not-to-use, but the intended context is immediately clear.

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