List Team Members

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields and invite status categories (pending/active), but does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or error handling beyond what annotations imply.

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 split into English and Spanish, doubling length unnecessarily. While the English part is efficient, the duplication reduces conciseness. No structural aids like bullet points are used.

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?

Output schema exists, and description covers basic return fields and utility. However, it lacks explanation of filtering behavior (role/status) and pagination (limit/offset defaults or ordering). For a simple list tool, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (role, status, limit, offset) including enums and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 lists all workspace members and specifies the return fields (ID, name, email, role, invite status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like invite_team_member, remove_team_member, and update_team_member_role.

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 mentions it is 'useful for access management and auditing,' providing some context but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or exclusions. No when-not or alternative tool references.

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