list_org_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'List teams' and does not mention whether it requires authentication, whether it is read-only, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return value looks like. The description is entirely silent on operational behavior.

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, short sentence: 'List teams in an organization.' It is front-loaded, free of redundancy, and appropriately sized for a simple list tool. Every word is relevant, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, the return format, or any operational details. While the tool is simple, the description should at least hint at the response type or note that it returns a paginated list. The current text is adequate only for a bare minimum.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only hints at the 'org' parameter through the phrase 'in an organization' but fails to explain 'page' or 'per_page'. There is no mention of required parameters, parameter types, or how pagination works, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic information.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List teams in an organization.' This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_org_members or list_packages_for_org by the specific resource (teams). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it misses the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the function without any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when another sibling might be more appropriate. This is a minimal viable description with no usage direction.

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