eda_dmt_team_get_all_teams_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds a useful remark that a personal individual is treated as a team named '个人', and it discloses the return type Promise<Array<IDMT_TeamItem>>. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error conditions, or any side effects, though 'get' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 compact and well-structured: it gives the function signature, purpose, a clarifying remark, and the return value in three short lines. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only query tool, the description conveys the essential purpose and return type, and the remark about individual-as-team is valuable. Still, without an output schema it lacks detail about the structure of IDMT_TeamItem, and it does not explain how 'direct teams' relate to current or involved teams, leaving some ambiguity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both the 'args' and 'windowId' parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the function signature, which shows no formal parameters; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '所有直接团队的详细属性' (detailed attributes of all direct teams). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like eda_dmt_team_get_all_involved_team_info and eda_dmt_team_get_current_team_info by scope, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 is provided on when to choose this tool over related team-info tools. The description implies a broad query over all direct teams but does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or context like current workspace or involved teams.

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