list-teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about PAT scoping and the special case of a team-bound PAT returning exactly one team, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 no filler. The core action and endpoint are front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat about team-bound PATs is a high-value addition that earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with complete schema documentation and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential scoping behavior and the team-bound edge case, and no output schema exists to require return-value explanation.

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 parameters q, page, and itemsPerPage are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema covers everything.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List teams') with the scope 'visible to this PAT', and includes the exact endpoint. It clearly distinguishes itself from other team-oriented tools like get-team, which fetch a single resource.

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 provides clear context: use this to list teams visible to the current PAT, and notes that a team-bound PAT returns exactly one team. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the list-versus-get distinction is strongly implied by the resource name and siblings.

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