Workboard Get Team Members Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds value by disclosing what comes back (user IDs and emails) and how the result chains into other tools, but says nothing about pagination, empty-team behavior, or result size limits.

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 tight sentences: the purpose and output are front-loaded, then the usage and chaining guidance. No filler or restated naming.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers purpose, resolution use case, and downstream chaining. Only minor operational details (pagination, large teams) are absent.

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% and the single team_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including where to obtain it. The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Get all members of a WorkBoard team') and even names the returned fields (user IDs and emails), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling workboard_get_teams_tool, though the schema does route team_id retrieval there.

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?

It states a concrete use case ('resolve a person's name or email to their WorkBoard user_id') and a follow-on call ('Combine with workboard_get_objectives_tool(user_id) to fetch their OKRs'), which is clear routing guidance. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or an alternative sibling for listing users.

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