list_team_members

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool is read-only (lists members) and returns roles and details, but does not address permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is idempotent. The lack of transparency beyond the basic action is insufficient for a production tool.

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 short (two sentences), but conciseness is undermined by missing parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the lack of structured detail about inputs makes it less useful. It earns its place but does not fully leverage the available space.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters including pagination and sorting, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not cover how to paginate results, sort, or filter by keyword. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's capabilities without additional context.

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 input schema has 5 parameters (team_id, page_size, page_number, sort, filter_keyword) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's purpose, format, or effect. The agent receives no help in understanding how to use pagination, sorting, or filtering, which is critical for proper invocation.

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 tool lists members of a Datadog team and shows user roles and membership details. It identifies the specific resource (team members) and action (list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-teams (which lists teams) and list-users (which lists all users). However, it could be more precise about what 'membership details' includes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. Sibling tools like list-teams or list-users are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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