teams-list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List all' suggests a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or any rate limiting. A more explicit statement like 'Read-only retrieval of all teams' would improve transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the primary action and implicitly indicates the scope ('all'). Minor improvement could mention result format or sorting, but not necessary for this straightforward tool.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents the parameter 'includeArchived' with its description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score 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 'List all Shortcut teams.' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('teams'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'teams-get-by-id' (fetches one team) or 'users-get-current-teams' (teams for a user).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for listing all teams, but does not mention when to consider other tools like 'teams-get-by-id' for specific teams or note that filtering is limited to the 'includeArchived' parameter.

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