Get Teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the permission-based visibility behavior (admins see all, regular users see only their teams), which is a key implementation trait. However, it does not mention other behaviors like pagination, sorting, or response format, but for a parameterless list operation this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a concise explanation of access behavior. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy. It is an excellent example of efficient, well-structured documentation.

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 simple, zero-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is retrieved and the access restrictions. It lacks explicit mention of return value structure or pagination, but given no output schema and sibling tools like get_team for detailed information, the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema is trivially documented (100% coverage). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly adds no parameter-related information because there is nothing to add. The description's focus on the access scope is more relevant than parameter semantics in this case.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all teams accessible to the current user.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_team by emphasizing 'all teams' and the current user's access scope, which is a unique characteristic not repeated elsewhere.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need all teams accessible to the current user. It implies a difference from get_team (singular) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The access ruling (admin vs regular user) gives practical guidance on expected results, but no direct 'use this instead of...' statement.

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