coolify_get_current_team_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. The description indicates the tool is a read-only listing operation (GET and list), which implies no side effects. However, it does not mention authentication requirements beyond the implicit API token binding, rate limits, or any pagination behavior. Given the simplicity of a no-parameter list call, the behavioral disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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, compact sentence that clearly states the action and scope. It includes the endpoint in parentheses for reference without redundancy. Every part of the sentence is informative and there is no wasted space.

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, no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the endpoint and the scope. The only minor omission is a note on what the response contains (e.g., a list of member objects). However, since there is no output schema, a brief note on return structure would be helpful. Still, the description effectively explains the tool's function without being overly verbose.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to miss). The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately handles this by not adding extraneous information.

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's purpose as listing members of the team associated with the API token. It includes the specific API endpoint (GET /team/members), which disambiguates it from siblings like coolify_get_team_members (which might list members for any team) and coolify_list_teams (which lists teams, not members). The verb 'list' is appropriate and the resource 'members of the team bound to the API token' is precise.

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 phrase 'bound to the API token' explicitly clarifies that this operation is scoped to the current authentication context. This tells the agent when to use this tool (when needing members of the current team) versus alternatives like coolify_get_team_members (if there is one that allows specifying a team ID). While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the sibling tools context provides a clear differentiation.

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