List team members

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying alphabetical ordering, scope requirement, and that it returns every user. No contradictions; behavior is well-explained.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: output format, usage examples, and scope requirement. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool (one param, read-only), the description covers purpose, ordering, scope, and usage ties to siblings. It lacks output format details (e.g., keys returned), but for a minimal tool this is adequate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains customer_id. The description adds no additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 3 for tools with full schema coverage.

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 every user holding a role in a customer, sorted alphabetically by email. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like team_list_roles (which lists roles) and team_remove_member (which removes a member).

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 use cases: seeing team membership and finding a user UUID for follow-up actions. It also mentions the required scope (team:read). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context of sibling tools implies alternatives.

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