teams_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool lists joined teams but does not describe any side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the prerequisite, pagination, or ordering. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise sentences convey the core purpose and a key prerequisite. No unnecessary words or 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema. The description covers the essential context (what it lists and a prerequisite). It could mention the output format, but the output schema handles that. Overall complete for a basic list tool.

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 with 100% schema coverage (empty schema). The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable because there are no parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'List your joined Microsoft Teams' which is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('joined Microsoft Teams'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like teams_channels, teams_chat_messages which focus on specific aspects of 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 description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires the Teams feature to be enabled in outpost setup') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple list tool, basic usage context is adequate but lacks explicit comparisons.

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