Get team members

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, so the readonly behavior is known. The description adds that it returns members with roles and profiles, but misses behavioral details like pagination (page, perPage, sort, order) or that teamName is effectively required.

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 concise at one sentence with no waste. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity, such as mentioning teamName is required.

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 no output schema, the description hints at return structure ('members with roles and profile') but lacks details on pagination or order. The schema covers parameters well, but the tool's behavior (e.g., teamName requirement) could be clearer.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'retrieves', resource 'members', and what is included ('roles and profile information'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like esa_get_teams or esa_get_team_stats, though the name is self-explanatory.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema hint for teamName ('Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams') is embedded but not part of the description, and no when-not-to-use context is provided.

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