auth_teams_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function but omits important details: it does not mention that results are based on the token's permissions, pagination behavior despite cursor/limit parameters, or that include_icon adds icon data. The description is insufficient for safe operation.

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 short sentence, front-loading the purpose. However, it is too brief given the tool has three optional parameters; it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. A more structured description with parameter context would be appropriate.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description does not explain return values or behavior. With three parameters and no guidance on their effects, the description leaves significant gaps. For a listing tool, details on pagination and filtering are essential.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving parameters like cursor, limit, and include_icon completely unexplained. The agent cannot understand how to use these parameters effectively.

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 the workspaces a token can access' clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (workspaces accessible by a token). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auth_test (which tests token validity) and auth_revoke (which revokes tokens) by focusing on workspace enumeration.

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. Among many sibling list tools, there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. An AI agent would have no basis to choose this over other listing tools without additional knowledge.

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