List team members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by specifying the output shape ('display name and unique name') and the scoping constraint ('specific team within a project'). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying what the agent will receive and the required context, without contradicting any annotation.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action ('List the members') and immediately provides the key detail (identities: display name and unique name). There is no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 list operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is returned (display name and unique name), the required scoping (team within a project), and the annotations cover idempotency and read-only behavior. An agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema itself: 'team' is 'Team id or name (from list_teams)' and 'project' is 'Project name or id (must be within AZDO_PROJECT_ALLOWLIST when that is set).' The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'specific team' is redundant with the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'members (identities: display name and unique name) of a specific team within a project.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_teams or list_projects, which operate on different resources. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 states the tool lists members for a specific team in a project, implying the user must know the team and project identifiers. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear: to get team members, you need this tool, whereas list_teams would be used to fetch teams. There is no explicit 'when not to use,' but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the correct usage scenario.

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