List Team Projects

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds beyond that by explaining the read-only design: members, roles, teams, and SSO are intentionally not changeable through MCP. It also notes organization context is required. This is useful behavioral context, though it omits return-format details.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the core action first. The read-only design note earns its place, though it is slightly tangential and makes it a bit less tight than a two-sentence definition.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, differentiation from a sibling, and safety behavior. Without an output schema, a brief note about return shape could have been added, but the output is fairly self-evident from the purpose.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter teamId is already described as the public GUID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to for such a simple parameter. Baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: lists the projects a team is assigned to, including the role (read or write). This is distinct from other sibling list tools like list_projects and list_project_teams, and the reference to list_teams reinforces the differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: requires organization context and only needs organization membership, contrasted with list_teams. It doesn't spell out a complete when-to-use/when-not-to-use decision tree, but the comparison and prerequisite are enough for an agent to select it correctly in most cases.

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