List teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns all teams or paginated results, whether it requires authentication, or what the response shape is. The phrase 'with their member accounts' gives a small hint about the return content, but it is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely short and to the point, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the resource name. However, it is so brief that it reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify the return format, pagination, and whether member accounts are included in the response. The phrase 'with their member accounts' partially addresses the return content, but the lack of any behavioral or usage context leaves gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description's mention of 'member accounts' adds some context about what the returned data contains, which is useful. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 'Teams with their member accounts.' identifies the resource (teams) and hints at the return content (member accounts), but it lacks a verb. It does not explicitly state that this is a list/read operation, though the tool name 'list_teams' and title 'List teams' convey that. It is not a tautology, but it is a fragment rather than a clear statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_team, create_team, update_team, and delete_team exist, but the description does not distinguish list_teams from get_team or explain when to choose one over the other. The context is only implied by the name 'list_teams'.

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