list_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden; 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'you are a member of' hints at authorization scope. However, it says nothing about pagination, result size, ordering, or whether the listing is complete, which are real gaps for a zero-param enumeration call.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the return fields and the follow-up routing hint. Nothing is padding, though the return-field sentence is mildly redundant given the output schema exists.

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 with an output schema that already defines the return fields, the description supplies the essential scope and a follow-up path, so it is nearly complete. Only pagination and completeness behavior are unaddressed.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of team_id in the description correctly describes a value returned for use elsewhere rather than an input.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all Microsoft Teams') plus a scoping condition ('you are a member of'), which tells an agent exactly what set is returned. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools such as list_chats or list_team_members, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only guidance is the follow-up hint 'Use a team_id with list_channels to see its channels,' which describes a next step rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. Usage is implied by 'Teams you are a member of' but no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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