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 fully covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (display name, email, roles). It does not mention pagination or empty-result behavior, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource and lists the returned fields concisely, making it easy to scan.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is adequate. It specifies the output fields, and the parameter is self-explanatory. It does not explain return format or edge cases, but these are not critical for such a simple operation.

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?

The single parameter team_id is fully documented in the schema with a description referencing list_teams. The tool description itself adds no parameter details beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 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 the action (list) and resource (members of a team), and specifies the returned fields (display name, email, roles). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_teams and list_channels without ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous: it is the tool for retrieving team members. The schema parameter description ('Team id (from list_teams)') implicitly guides usage by tying it to a prerequisite sibling, providing clear context.

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