List team members

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of output disclosure, which it does by listing the exact member fields returned. It does not mention pagination or result-size limits, but 'all team members' implies a complete, unpaginated list, making this reasonably transparent for a safe read 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful: the first states the action, the second lists return fields and the reason to call it. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema, and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema and an empty input schema, the description must supply the return contract, and it does so by enumerating the member fields and the cross-tool use case. The only gap is the absence of any note on ordering, pagination, or permissions, which is minor for a parameterless read tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema means there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for, and the description correctly implies no filtering inputs are required.

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 and resource ('Get list of all team members') and enumerates the returned fields (id/membership_id, email, name, policy, approval status, teamspaces), which no sibling tool provides. It also states its unique downstream role (supplying membership IDs), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from the portal/package siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use: obtaining membership IDs needed for 'portal access_list when creating private portals.' There is no competing sibling that lists team members, so no when-not guidance is required, but the description stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed).

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