team_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: returned teams depend on the caller's role ('Managed agents see their own team; external supervisors see all teams'). For a read-only list with no parameters, this is meaningful transparency, though it does not describe output format.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The role-based detail is delivered efficiently with no filler, and each sentence contributes essential information.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description explains what is listed and the visibility rules. There is no output schema, so a slight gap exists around return format, but the operation is simple enough that the description is largely complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the instructions give a baseline of 4 for parameter-free tools. The description adds role-based filtering context, which is relevant to interpreting what the (empty) input means.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List visible teams'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also adds the role-based scoping distinction (managed agents vs. external supervisors), which differentiates it from generic sibling tools like 'list' and 'team_status'.

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 useful context about who sees which teams, implying when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'team_status' or 'list' are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the correct selection.

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