Users: Get Current Teams

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the behavioral safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict but also does not add value.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with key information and effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 tool with sufficient annotations, the description is complete. It clearly conveys what the tool does. The absence of an output schema is offset by the simplicity of the operation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema provides complete information. The description does not need to add parameter info, and baseline 4 applies. It could optionally describe the return list structure, but that is not required for parameter semantics.

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 (get a list) and the resource (teams where the current user is a member). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like teams-list (all teams) and teams-get-by-id (a specific team) through the scoping to current 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 or not use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage by stating the scope (current user's teams), but does not mention alternatives or provide contextual directives.

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