list_squads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose two key behaviors: cursor-based pagination and a plan-tier access requirement, both useful for an agent. However, it omits other behaviors such as result ordering, empty-response handling, or any rate-limit note; the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the two behavioral constraints (plan tier, pagination) are efficiently grouped in parentheses. Every token earns its place.

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 list tool with two optional, fully-documented parameters, the description covers the core essentials: the resource, plan gating, and pagination method. However, with no output schema, the agent is left without any hint of the return shape, ordering, or squad fields, which is a notable gap for a tool of this kind.

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 100% — both cursor and page_size are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only the 'cursor-paginated' phrase, which reinforces cursor's purpose but adds no new syntax or format detail. At 100% coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('List squads') that plainly states the operation. The parenthetical adds useful scope details (plan gating, pagination). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_squad or list_squad_members, though those names are fairly self-evident, so clarity is strong but not maximally differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Related siblings (get_squad, list_squad_members) are never mentioned, and there's no when-not-to-use note. The only usage constraint is the implicit 'Growth plan and above' plan requirement, which is a mild gate but does not address tool selection.

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