team_access_review

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

Description indicates a read operation (list), which aligns with the tool's purpose. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, scope limitations, or behavior when parameters are omitted (e.g., if no repo is provided, does it list org-level users?).

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 concise, two sentences, no filler.

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 has 3 parameters (1 required) and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more context. The mention of permission levels is good, but lack of team parameter explanation and no output schema details (though output schema exists) leave gaps.

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 description mentions 'repo or org' which partially explains the 'owner' and 'repo' parameters, but the 'team' parameter is not mentioned at all. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient.

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 action (list) and resource (users and permission levels for a repo or org). It distinguishes from sibling tools like permission_audit by specifying granular permission levels (admin, write, read).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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