team_roster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only ('Show') and returns a table, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, data freshness, or side effects. The description is too minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value (purpose, return format, use cases).

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return format (table with handles, roles, capabilities) and provides use cases. However, it lacks details on ordering, filtering, pagination, or what 'capabilities' entails. Still reasonably complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (instance_id) with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Show' and the resource 'all team members and their assigned roles on a shared brain instance'. It differentiates from sibling tools like team_assign_role (which modifies roles) implicitly, but does not explicitly distinguish itself.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: 'Use during onboarding to see who can do what, or to verify role assignments.' Provides clear context for when to use, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned despite a large sibling list.

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