List teams (cross-organization)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the returned fields, giving some transparency, but does not clarify behaviors such as pagination, ordering, the meaning of 'system flag', or the difference between organization options beyond what the schema already states. It is read-oriented ('List') but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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, clear sentence that immediately states the action and scope, with no extraneous information. 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?

As a listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential purpose and fields but lacks other contextual details like return format, potential errors, or the semantics of allOrganizations vs organizations (though schema covers those). It is minimally viable but not rich.

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 schema describes 3 of 4 parameters (75% coverage), leaving 'search' undocumented. The description adds the context of 'one or many organizations', aligning with the organization-related parameters, but does not add meaning for 'search' or elaborate on the parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is moderate, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 tool lists teams (specific resource) with a scope of one or many organizations, and lists return fields (id, name, description, system flag). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wflow_get_team (single team) and wflow_list_users (different 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 conveys when to use the tool ('List teams in one or many organizations') and implies cross-organization capability, which is a distinct use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope itself provides clear context.

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