list_teams

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

The description states that it returns a JSON string with a list of teams, so basic output behavior is disclosed. However, with no annotations, it does not clarify pagination behavior, default page size, whether 'all teams' means all pages or only the first page, or any permission/error scenarios.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args/Returns format. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple list operation, the description provides enough context: the resource, scope, parameter meanings, and return format. It could be stronger with pagination defaults or error conditions, but the presence of page/per_page is implied by the parameter names and basic explanations.

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 schema provides no descriptions, so the description carries the burden. It gives a meaningful one-line explanation for each parameter, including naming connection_name, page, per_page, and providing example fields for the 'fields' parameter. It lacks constraints or allowed values but covers the basics.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'List all teams in the organization.' It names the resource (teams), the scope (organization), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools like list_users or list_connections.

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?

Use is implied by the title and description: an agent would use this when it needs all teams. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools or when it would be inappropriate, such as needing users, folders, or datasources.

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