list_team_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, which is useful context, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not stated), what permissions are required, rate limits, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'List team members with pagination'—front-loading the core action and key feature. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and usage context relative to siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results, especially with no output schema to compensate.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (teamId, limit, offset) with descriptions like 'number' and 'string'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying pagination through 'limit' and 'offset', but doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('team members'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_users' by specifying team members rather than all users, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'detail_team' which might provide team details rather than member listings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_users' or 'detail_team'. It mentions pagination, which hints at usage for large datasets, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names alone.

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