asana_list_teams

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the valuable behavioral trait 'Paginated' and the authorization-scoping detail that results are limited to teams the token owner belongs to, which goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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?

A single descriptive sentence that states the action, resource, scope, and pagination behavior with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 paginated list operation, the description combined with the complete parameter schema and the safety annotations is sufficient. There is no output schema, but the tool's purpose and behavior are clear without needing a detailed return-value breakdown.

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%, so all four parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: it says 'List teams', identifies scope ('the token owner belongs to'), and specifies the location ('in the workspace/organization'). This clearly separates it from sibling list tools like asana_list_projects or asana_list_users.

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 use whenever team membership information is needed and clarifies that it only covers teams the token owner belongs to, but it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions. The usage context is clear enough for a simple list operation.

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