List Teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that results are scoped to the authenticated user's membership, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size limits.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return shape second. Nothing is wasted and no sentence needs to be re-read.

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, read-only list tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers scope and nothing essential is missing. The return-shape sentence partly duplicates the output schema, but as a quick hint it is harmless rather than misleading.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the teams') plus the scope ('the authenticated user belongs to'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_channels or search_users. It stops short of naming any sibling, but none of the siblings list teams, so disambiguation is largely inherent.

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 its use case (discovering teams available to the current user), but never says when to call it versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. With no directly competing tool among the siblings, the implied usage is adequate rather than explicit.

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