list_teams

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

Without annotations, the description relies on the word 'list' to convey a read-only behavior and adds scope information ('user has access to'), which implies access filtering. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any potential errors, leaving some behavioral details undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It communicates the essential action and scope efficiently.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and scope, but it does not specify the response structure (e.g., array of team objects). The absence of an output schema means the description should have provided more detail on the return value, but the term 'list' partially compensates.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning. Per the baseline rule for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource ('all teams') and the scope ('the user has access to'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team (single team) and team-related mutations.

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 implies the tool is for enumerating all teams available to the user, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_team or list_projects. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, but the basic usage context is clear enough for a simple list operation.

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