cigchat_team_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the required authorization scope ('Manage Team' scope) and implies read-only behavior through the verb 'Get'. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, response format, or potential errors, which are relevant for a list endpoint without an output schema.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get list of workspace members'), includes the endpoint for reference, and notes the required scope. Every element adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool with well-documented parameters and a clear read-only purpose, the description is adequate. It includes the auth requirement and makes the return type (a list) implicit. The lack of an output schema means the agent must infer the response structure, but the simplicity of the operation mitigates this. A perfect score would require more detail on return format or pagination behavior.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for all four parameters (name, page, role, limit), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score 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 tool's function: 'Get list of workspace members' with a specific verb (Get) and resource (workspace members). It also includes the endpoint for additional clarity and is distinct from sibling tools like team_agent_groups (lists groups) and team_bot_users (lists bot users).

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 context is clear: use this tool to fetch the list of workspace members. It also mentions a prerequisite (requires 'Manage Team' scope), which aids in deciding when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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