List Project Teams

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds important context: it states that members, roles, teams, and SSO are not changeable through MCP by design, and that humans handle changes in the web app. It also notes the requirement for project context, which is not in the schema. This goes well beyond the annotation's simple hint.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and direction, then adds the read-only and context requirements. Every sentence 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?

Given there are no parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, usage direction, read-only behavior, and a prerequisite. It is complete for the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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 the schema already fully covers them (100% coverage vacuously). The description adds value by mentioning the need for 'project context', which is not a formal parameter but a contextual prerequisite. This gives the agent actionable information beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('teams that reach the active project') and clarifies the role inclusion. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_team_projects by calling itself 'the other direction' and providing a memorable heuristic ('who can write here'). This leaves no ambiguity about 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?

The description gives a clear usage context: it is the inverse of list_team_projects and is for determining write access. It also notes the requirement for project context. This is explicit enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately without extra reasoning.

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