list-teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'pagination', which is already evident from the input schema parameters (limit, before, after). It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits important for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded, but it is under-informative given the complexity of the tool (6 parameters, no output schema). While every word earns its place, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, filtering behavior (e.g., parentTeam, include), or how pagination cursors work. The tool has many siblings, but the description offers no differentiation beyond the basic action.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the schema itself documents parameter semantics. The description adds no additional param information, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 action ('List') and resource ('teams') along with a key feature ('pagination'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-team' and 'get-team-by-name', which return a single team. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all teams or filtered), leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there is no direct alternative for listing teams, the description does not explain its relationship to other list tools (e.g., when to use list-teams vs list-users). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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