sigma_list_team_members

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not disclose whether results are complete, paginated, or what happens if the team does not exist. For a list operation, this is a minimal but acceptable gap, yet the description adds no value beyond what the annotations already declare.

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, front-loaded sentence of five words: 'List members of a team.' It is extremely concise and contains no redundant or filler content, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema that presumably documents return structure), the description is nearly complete. It does not mention return values or pagination, but the output schema likely covers that. The only minor gap is not noting the team_id requirement explicitly, though that is implied by the resource phrasing.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter (team_id). The description's phrase 'of a team' implies that team_id identifies the team whose members are listed, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema field name. However, it does not explain the format, required permissions, or relationship to other team entities.

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 'List members of a team' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('members of a team'), which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_list_members (which lists all members) and sigma_list_member_teams (which lists teams for a member). The team scoping is explicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sigma_list_members, sigma_get_member, or sigma_update_team_members. The description offers no contextual cues about prerequisites, team ID requirements, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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