project_get_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it retrieves teams but does not mention side effects, error handling (e.g., if projectId does not exist), rate limits, or read-only nature. This is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness. However, it is too minimal and could benefit from a slightly longer structure that includes key behavioral information without becoming verbose.

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 moderate complexity (nested object parameter), the description does not explain what the returned teams represent, whether pagination is used, or any other context. Sibling tools like project_get_all provide more detail, making this description feel incomplete.

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 has 50% coverage (options parameter has a description, but projectId does not). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that teams are retrieved by project ID. The 'options' parameter, which is a nested object, is left entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot know what optional parameters it accepts.

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 'Get' and the resource 'teams', and specifies the key parameter 'project ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_get_all (gets all projects) and project_get_by_id (gets project details).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It is a simple read operation, but without context, the agent cannot know if it's appropriate to call this in a given scenario.

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