get_team_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is clear. The description adds that it returns a list of users, but does not disclose pagination behavior (parameters exist) or any potential limitations (e.g., team membership visibility). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description misses the nuance of paginated results.

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?

Three sentences, each with clear purpose: purpose, output, and use case. No wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema (so return values need not be detailed), the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. However, it omits mention of pagination behavior, which is relevant given the cursor parameters. Still, for a simple read operation, it is adequately 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, including details like team_id format and pagination parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score applies.

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?

Clear verb ('get') and resource ('team members'). Description explicitly states it returns a list of users belonging to a team and provides a concrete use case ('discover users before sending direct messages or mentions'), distinguishing it from sibling member-list tools like get_channel_members.

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?

Description includes a use case ('discover users before sending direct messages or mentions'), which guides when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives, though the context from sibling names provides some implicit differentiation.

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