Pilot MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose return format, pagination behavior, caching policies, or error conditions. The mention of 'channels' without specifying data structure (nested vs flat) leaves behavioral traits unclear.

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?

Extremely concise at only five words. No redundancy or filler content. However, the brevity comes at the cost of necessary context given the complex sibling relationships and lack of output schema.

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?

Incomplete for a listing tool with no output schema and no annotations. Fails to explain the relationship between this tool and 'teams_list_channels' regarding channel data, and does not specify the scope of Teams returned (e.g., all accessible, favorited, or recent).

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% description coverage. Baseline score of 4 applies as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification 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 states it lists Teams and mentions channels, but creates ambiguity with sibling tool 'teams_list_channels'. It does not clarify whether this returns teams with nested channels, all channels flat, or if 'channels' refers to something else. Lacks scope clarification (all teams vs joined teams only).

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'teams_list_channels' or 'teams_list_chats'. Does not mention prerequisites like authentication requirements or necessary permissions to list Teams.

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