List Teams

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds some behavioral context (project scope and a sequencing hint) but does not disclose pagination behavior or return format. With strong annotations, this is acceptable but not highly revealing.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, providing clear purpose and a usage hint without unnecessary detail.

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 list tool with three optional parameters and rich annotations, the description covers the main purpose and adds a critical usage hint. It does not explicitly explain return format, but 'List teams' implies a list. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, with each of the three parameters having a descriptive description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 teams in a project' with a specific resource and scope. It also differentiates from the sibling tool team_list_members by mentioning it should be used before it when only a team name is known, establishing a distinct purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before team_list_members when only a team name is known.' This identifies an alternative tool and a specific condition for using this one. The parameter schema also adds guidance for project_key, though that is outside the description.

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