List My Joined Teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does so by stating the required permission (delegated Team.ReadBasic.All) and clarifying the 'directly joined' scope, which adds meaningful context. It does not mention response format or pagination, but that is not necessary for a zero-parameter list 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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes permission and multilingual intent hints without unnecessary padding.

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 zero-parameter list operation, this description covers the essential elements: what it does, under what conditions (permission), and scope. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema carries no burden. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable.

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 identifies the action (List), the resource (Microsoft Teams teams), and the scope (signed-in user has directly joined). It distinguishes from sibling tools like teams_get_team and teams_list_team_members by specifying the user's joined teams.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when needing to list the signed-in user's joined teams) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusions.

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