list_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of indicating read-only behavior. 'List' clearly signals a safe read operation, and 'all' and 'you belong to' add scope. It doesn't mention return format or pagination, but for a zero-parameter list, this is adequate.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place—no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity of a zero-parameter list tool, the description is almost complete. It could be argued that adding return object details would be helpful, but the tool's name and description suffice for an agent to understand what it does. No output schema exists, but for this basic list, it's not critical.

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?

With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying 'all' and 'you belong to', clarifying the implicit scope of the list operation beyond the empty schema.

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' with a specific resource 'all teams/organizations you belong to'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' by targeting teams/organizations rather than projects, and the scope 'you belong to' is explicit.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to see all teams/organizations you belong to. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools.

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