tempo_get_team_memberships

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds the crucial scoping constraint (single team) and points to the sibling for broader queries. It does not disclose response format or pagination, but for a simple list operation with annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by the alternative-routing condition. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded 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?

For a read-only list tool with two well-documented parameters and an explicit alternative, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of return format or pagination, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap. The description fully covers what an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it and how to do so correctly.

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 both parameters already documented in the input schema. The view parameter has a detailed explanation of compact vs full behavior, and teamId is described as 'Tempo team id'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), names the resource ('all memberships for a single Tempo team'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by scoping to a single team. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from tempo_search_team_memberships.

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 when to use this tool (single team) versus when to use the alternative (filter across teams, by account or role) and names the alternative tool. This is a clear routing instruction that helps the agent pick the correct tool without needing to open schemas.

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