get_user_teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it implies a read-only retrieval from an authenticated account, discloses the 15-minute disk cache, and explains how force_refresh bypasses it. It does not explicitly state permission requirements or rate limits, but the key operational traits are covered.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then structured with Args and Returns. It is slightly verbose because the Returns section repeats output format details, but it remains readable and appropriately sized for a two-parameter discovery tool.

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?

The description explains the purpose, parameter behavior, authentication context, caching, and return formats. Since an output schema exists, the return details are not strictly required, but their presence makes the definition complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters, and it does: output_format is explained as markdown table versus compact JSON, and force_refresh is explained as bypassing the local 15-minute disk cache for a live fetch.

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 a specific verb and resource: discover/list all Hudl teams associated with the authenticated account. It also names the practical purpose, finding the Team ID, so an agent can immediately distinguish this from match/stats/auth sibling tools.

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 use case is clear: call this to discover teams and find a Team ID. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to serve the same purpose, so the context is still strong.

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