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 description doesn't need to repeat safety behavior. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, returned member fields, or whether membership is recursive.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 no-output-schema tool with two required parameters, the description is too thin: it doesn't state what a member record looks like, that team lookup is scoped by project, or the relationship to list_teams. An agent has enough to know the resource but not enough to reliably identify inputs and interpret results.

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 only 50%; the 'team' parameter is documented as 'Team id or name' but the required 'project' parameter has no schema description. The tool description says 'members of a team' but never explains how the project parameter scopes the team, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('members of a team'), so an agent can tell this apart from sibling list_teams or list_projects at a glance. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it doesn't reach the top of the scale.

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 choose this over list_teams or how to obtain the required team/project values. Nothing is said about prerequisites or exclusions, so an agent must infer the usage context from the tool name alone.

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