balena_list_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety and idempotency. The description adds that the list is scoped to the API token's visibility, which is useful context about what is returned (only what the token can see). This adds value beyond annotations, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no waste, front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place.

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 a simple list operation with no output schema and no required parameters. The description and annotations cover safety and scope. Pagination is standard, and the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. No critical missing information for a list tool.

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 33%: the description covers only 'parent_id' (mentions 'Fleet, team, or organization ID when applicable'). The description text does not explain 'top' or 'skip', but these are standard pagination parameters that may not need explanation. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, but coverage is moderate, so baseline 3 is fair.

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 teams visible to the API token.' clearly states the action (list) and resource (teams), and specifies the scope (visible to the token). It distinguishes from siblings like balena_list_organizations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them, it's clear enough.

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 when you need to list teams, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other listing tools. Given the sibling tools, there's no explicit guidance on when to choose this over balena_list_fleets or balena_list_organizations, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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