list_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it lists teams accessible to the authenticated user, implying read-only behavior and authentication needs, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or return format. It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete by covering purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral traits like pagination, which could be helpful despite the simplicity. It meets most needs but has minor gaps.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 specific action ('List all teams') and resource ('teams the authenticated user has access to'), with a distinct purpose from siblings like 'get_current_team' or 'get_team' that retrieve specific teams. It provides a concrete use case for obtaining team UUIDs, making it highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to get team UUIDs needed for other operations'), which provides clear context for its application. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_current_team' for a single team), missing full exclusion guidance.

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