missive_list_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds contextual behavior: mentions the scope (teams the user has access to) and the optional filter's effects. The redundant 'Read-only' tag adds no new info but does not contradict 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?

Two efficient sentences. First sentence states purpose and output fields; second covers filtering and read-only nature. No wasted words.

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 pagination (inferred from limit/offset params), the description covers the resource, filter, and access scope. It does not explicitly state that results are paginated, but the schema handles that. Minor missing context about the output structure beyond the field list.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description repeats the organization filter behavior already present in the schema, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'teams', and specifies the returned fields (id, name, organization, members, observers, behaviors). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_organizations or 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 explains the optional organization filter and its default behavior (default organization or all accessible organizations). However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, such as when to use it versus list_organizations.

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