list_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the schema — the required team:read scope — and 'list' implies a read-only, no-side-effect operation, but it says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether the roster is org-wide vs a caller's team.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. Slightly better if the scope requirement were merged or placed consistently, but there is no wasted text.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (names, roles, departments) and the auth requirement, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only return-shape details like counts or pagination are absent, which is acceptable here.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the schema cannot add meaning. Baseline 4 applies; the parenthetical field list is descriptive of output rather than input, which is a minor bonus.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('team roster for the organization') and names the returned fields (names, roles, departments), which distinguishes it from the report-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with whoami, but the roster scope is clear enough that an agent can pick it out.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named, even though whoami overlaps conceptually with looking up people. The 'Requires the team:read scope' line is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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