teams_list_teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only action ('Lists') and defines the scope ('all the Microsoft Teams the user belongs to'). However, it does not disclose prerequisites like needing an authenticated Teams connection, nor does it mention potential pagination or output format.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no redundant words. It is maximally concise while remaining clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains its purpose. It could slightly improve by stating the return type explicitly, but 'Lists all the Microsoft Teams' already implies a list of team entities, making it nearly complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and the empty schema fully covers this aspect.

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 ('Lists') and a clear resource ('all the Microsoft Teams the user belongs to'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like teams_list_channels and teams_list_chats, which list different entities.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to list Teams the user belongs to) but provides no explicit exclusions or comparison with alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest different scopes, but the description itself does not explain when not to use it.

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