team_agents

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does characterize the operation as a read-only enumeration plus a live reachability probe, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about how reachability is determined, latency/caching, or whether the call has side effects on the transports.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the exact items returned and the liveness attribute, with no filler. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description covers what is listed and the reachability flag. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the total absence of parameter guidance leaves a real gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters: gui_agent (boolean, default false) and codex_thread (nullable string) appear with no descriptions in either schema or description. The description never mentions these parameters, so an agent cannot tell whether gui_agent restricts the listing to GUI transports or how codex_thread scopes results.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus a precisely enumerated resource (team agent transports: codex CLI, codex-gui, antigravity, antigravity-gui) and the reachability check it performs. It is clearly distinguishable from mutation/messaging siblings like team_send_message or team_run_task, though it never names the status siblings (codex_gui_status, antigravity_gui_status) to draw the line explicitly.

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 phrase "whether each is reachable right now" implies a pre-flight discovery use case, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent must infer that this is the tool to call before dispatching to a transport.

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