workboard_get_team_members_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read operation ('Get all members') and mentions the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose potential issues like required permissions or team existence validation. The description is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 two functional sentences plus a third sentence with a usage tip. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 simple one-parameter schema and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, input derivation, and a typical workflow. There is no missing critical context for a list-members tool.

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 100% with a clear description for team_id. The tool description adds context about resolving names/emails but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., indicating the ID comes from workboard_get_teams_tool). 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 clearly states it gets all members of a WorkBoard team, including user IDs and emails. It also specifies a secondary use (resolving names/emails to user_id). This distinguishes it from siblings like workboard_get_teams_tool (lists teams) and workboard_get_user_tool (single user).

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool ('resolve a person's name or email to their WorkBoard user_id') and suggests a combination with workboard_get_objectives_tool. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear with a concrete example.

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