list_team_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the operation (list) and the returned fields (member names, emails, creation dates). However, it does not describe pagination behavior or any potential side effects, and 'authenticated user' implies access control without detailing permissions.

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 highly concise: two sentences that state purpose, filtering capability, and output fields. No filler or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool.

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 operation with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool returns and the main filter option. Minor gap: it does not explain cursor-based pagination, but the schema describes the cursor parameter, so an agent can infer its use.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (team and cursor). The description adds minimal overhead by reiterating that filtering by team is possible, but does not enrich the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing team members accessible to the authenticated user. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_teams by specifying the resource (members) and the scope (accessible to the user).

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to list team members) and mentions the optional team filter. It does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling list_teams handles a different resource, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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