list_team_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact: access is gated by the organisation owner's Kiln Business plan, not the caller's. It says nothing about permissions required, pagination, ordering, or whether the caller must be a member, and most of the text is plan marketing rather than tool behavior.

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 one useful clause leads, but roughly two-thirds of the text is unrelated upsell — team review, approval gates, printer counts, and a pricing URL with tracking parameters. That padding dilutes the signal an agent needs and does not earn its place.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what a member record contains and whether results are paginated or complete. Instead it spends its budget on plan advertising, leaving the return shape entirely unstated.

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 coverage is 0% for the single team_id parameter, so the schema only says 'Team Id' with no format or sourcing hint. The description implies team_id selects which team's roster is returned but adds nothing about identifier shape (slug vs UUID) or where to obtain one.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource (list members of a given team), which is enough to distinguish it from team-management tools like create_team or delete_team. It does not differentiate from the close sibling list_org_members, whose scope (org vs team) an agent must infer from the names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_org_members, list_my_teams, or list_teams, which all enumerate people or team containers. The only conditional content is a plan prerequisite, not a selection rule.

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