teams_workspace_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists files and advises that binary files should be read via filesystem (implying it does not return full content). This is sufficient for a safe read-only operation, though it could mention output format details if needed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers the tool's behavior plus a usage hint for binary files, it is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%, baseline 4). The description adds value by guiding use with binary files, but no parameter details are required. Scores appropriately at the baseline.

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 verb ('List') and the resource ('files currently in the transient workspace directory'), and includes specific guidance for binary files. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'teams_files' and 'teams_list' by scoping to the workspace directory.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list workspace files) and provides a secondary action for binary files (read via filesystem). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though the sibling context makes the purpose clear.

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