list_joined_teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains client-side limit behavior with dropped teams, continuation-token pagination, the include_raw effect, and the exact return envelope. Minor gaps like sorting and errors are not critical for this read-only listing.

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 compact and well-organized with a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Each line adds value. The phrase 'Applied client-side (see below)' is slightly vague, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 simple optional-parameter list tool, the description covers inputs, output envelope, pagination, and optional raw data. The main gaps are the specific fields inside trimmed_team and explicit loop-until-page-end guidance, but next_page_token makes that largely inferable.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents all three parameters: limit includes range, default, and client-side trimming; page_token is identified as a continuation token; include_raw is tied to the raw Graph payload. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('teams the signed-in user is a member of'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on messages, calendars, chats, and channels. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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?

Usage context is implied: use when the signed-in user's team memberships are needed. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative tools, so the guidance is adequate but not strong.

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