list_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the behavioral profile. The description does not contradict these annotations and adds a small amount of context by indicating the returned data (team IDs and names), though it does not elaborate on side effects or rate limits beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and pagination feature.

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 is complete for a simple listing tool: it states what is returned (team IDs and names) and the pagination method. Since there is no output schema, this return information is sufficient. It could be slightly more detailed about the pagination format, but overall it covers the essential context.

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 description does not explain the 'limit' or 'cursor' parameters at all. Schema coverage is 0% because the description only mentions 'cursor pagination' generically without detailing how the parameters affect behavior. The schema provides type and constraints, but the description adds no semantic value to them.

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 action (List), the resource (team IDs and names), and the pagination mechanism. It is unambiguous and distinct from any sibling tools, which deal with events, projects, and issues rather than teams.

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 implies usage by its clear purpose, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Since no sibling tool lists teams, the use case is implicitly understood, but not explicitly stated.

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