admin_get_teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns sensitive data (credentials), which is valuable. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential data volume, or any side effects. This 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a critical scoping restriction. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable amount of context: it specifies the data returned (teams, users, credentials) and the access restriction. It lacks some detail about response structure, but for a basic getter this is acceptable.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools, as there is nothing to document.

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 retrieves all teams along with their associated users and credentials, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('teams'). It also includes a scoping restriction ('White team only'), which distinguishes it from other admin tools that add or update 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 phrase 'White team only' provides clear context about when this tool is applicable, implying it should not be used for other team types. There are no explicit alternatives mentioned, but given the absence of a similar listing tool among siblings, this is sufficient guidance.

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