list_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description says nothing about behavior: it does not explain what happens when project is omitted (default null), whether all teams across all projects are returned, or how results are scoped and ordered. That leaves a meaningful behavioral gap for a single-filter listing tool.

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?

One short parenthetical sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficient: the core action is never stated as a verb and the important qualifier about team names arrives without a leading statement of purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the tool is still incomplete: the optional project filter's semantics and default behavior are unexplained and the listing action is only implicit. For a tool that other tools depend on for team names, more context would be warranted.

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 0% for the only parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never states whether 'project' accepts a name or an id, nor what null/default means for the tool's scope.

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 is a noun phrase ('Teams of a project') rather than a verb-led statement, so the agent must infer that this enumerates teams. The scope (per project) is at least clear, and the sibling list_team_members is distinguishable by the word 'teams' alone, but there is no explicit 'list' verb and no differentiation statement.

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 parenthetical 'team names are used by iteration and schedule tools' implies when this tool is needed — as a prerequisite to fetch team identifiers for other calls. However, it gives no when-not guidance, no mention of list_projects vs list_team_members as alternatives, and no prerequisites for the optional project argument.

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