get_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or returns paginated results. The minimal text provides no behavioral insights beyond the basic action.

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 very short but includes extraneous information like the full HTTP path and tags, which are not essential for an AI agent. The core function 'Get Teams' is clear, but the extra text could be removed for better conciseness.

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 no output schema and simple input, the description should clarify the response structure (e.g., list of team objects) and any limitations like pagination or filtering. It fails to provide this context, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding of the tool's output.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds the HTTP path and tags, but these are not parameter semantics. The score reflects that no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 'Get Teams', which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly specify that this returns a list of all teams, distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_team' which likely retrieves a single team. The inclusion of HTTP path and tags is redundant but not misleading.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_team' or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or context for when fetching all teams is appropriate.

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